The Court held that municipal authorities must ordinarily follow due process and principles of natural justice before demolishing private property, even where encroachment is alleged.
Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Relief Against Proposed Shop Demolition
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that demolition of private property without notice can be justified only in urgent or exceptional circumstances, and that compliance with the principles of natural justice remains the general rule.
Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad passed the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by an individual whose two shops were identified for demolition in connection with a proposed road-widening project.
Petitioner Claimed Long Possession And Regular Tax Payments
The petitioner, K. Sreenivasulu, claimed possession over a parcel of land on which two shops had been constructed. According to the petitioner, he had been regularly paying property tax and electricity charges in respect of the said premises.
The dispute arose after the area where the property was situated became busier, prompting the municipal authorities to plan road widening. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, arrayed as Respondent No. 2, identified the petitioner’s shops as falling within the proposed road-widening area and sought to demolish them.
The petitioner contended that the proposed demolition was being undertaken without land acquisition proceedings and without payment of compensation.
Petitioner Alleged Violation Of Constitutional Rights
Through the writ petition, the petitioner argued that the proposed action of the respondents was arbitrary and illegal. It was submitted that no prior notice had been issued before the proposed demolition and no compensation had been offered.
The petitioner contended that the action violated Sections 146 and 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as well as Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution.
Municipal Corporation Claimed Structures Were Encroachments
The Municipal Corporation opposed the petition by asserting that the structures were encroachments on a public road.
It relied on Section 405 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, which permits removal of encroachments without prior notice. On this basis, the Corporation argued that it was not statutorily required to comply with the principles of natural justice.
The Corporation further submitted that a road development plan had already been published and that the petitioner had earlier been orally instructed to remove the structures.
During the pendency of the matter, the High Court had granted a status quo order, thereby restraining demolition.
Court Relies On Olga Tellis Principle
At the outset, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985). In that case, while interpreting Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, the Supreme Court held that an opportunity of hearing is ordinarily required before State action affects individuals, and that such requirement may be dispensed with only in exceptional or urgent circumstances warranting immediate action.
The Court then examined Section 405 of the 1955 Act, noting that it is in pari materia with Section 314 of the 1888 Act. Section 405 enables the Commissioner to remove structures on public roads without issuing prior notice.
However, the High Court clarified that such power cannot be treated as a general exemption from natural justice.
Natural Justice Can Be Excluded Only By Exception
The Court observed that while the Corporation may exercise its power to clear illegal encroachments under Section 405 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, the requirement of natural justice can be dispensed with only in limited circumstances.
It held that such departure may be permissible only in cases of urgency that admit no delay, in cases involving encroachments of recent origin, or where an encroacher attempts to re-occupy public space.
The Court observed:
“while the Corporation is exercising its power to clear the illegal encroachments under Section 405 of the Act, 1955, only in cases of urgency which brook no delay, or in cases where the encroachments are of recent origin or if the encroacher attempts to re-occupy the public space, the requirement of following Principles of Natural Justice can be dispensed with; and that, in all such cases, “departure‟ from the Principle of “Audi Alteram Partem” rule is presumed to have been intended by the legislature. Therefore, Section 405 is so designed as to exclude the Principles of Natural Justice “by way of exception‟ and “not as a general rule‟.”
Court Notes Petitioner’s Long Standing Possession
Applying the above principle to the case, the Court found that the petitioner appeared to be in long-standing possession of the two shops bearing D.No.41/1587 and D.No.41/1588.
The Court further noted that the petitioner was not merely asserting possessory rights but was also claiming ownership on the basis of a registered document.
The Court held:
“ … it, prima facie, appears that the Writ Petitioner in the present case has been in long standing possession of the two shops bearing D.No.41/1587 and D.No.41/1588 and that the Writ Petitioner is claiming not only a semblance of a possessory right but a right of ownership on the strength of the registered document. Under these circumstances, it would be incumbent upon the Respondent Authorities not only to issue notice but also to provide a reasonable hearing before passing a Speaking Order in accordance with law.”
Authorities Directed To Conduct Enquiry After Fair Hearing
The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the municipal authorities to follow the principles of natural justice. It further directed them to provide a fair hearing in view of the petitioner’s alleged long-standing possession and complete the enquiry in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: K. Sreenivasulu v. The State of A.P
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.3506 OF 2026
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
Legal Provisions Referred: Sections 146 and 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955; Section 405 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955; Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution
Precedent Relied On: Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
