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 Protects Shops From Demolition
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted relief to a man whose two shops faced demolition for a proposed road-widening project.
Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad held that authorities cannot demolish private property without notice as a general rule. The Court said they may skip notice only in urgent or exceptional cases.
The Court also stressed that authorities must follow the principles of natural justice before taking action that affects property rights.
Petitioner Claims Long Possession And Tax Payments
The petitioner, K. Sreenivasulu, claimed possession over land where he had constructed two shops.
He said he had regularly paid property tax and electricity charges for the premises.
The dispute began after the area became busier. The municipal authorities then planned road widening.
The Kadapa Municipal Corporation identified the petitioner’s shops as falling within the proposed road-widening area. It then sought to demolish them.
The petitioner argued that the authorities had not started land acquisition proceedings. He also said they had not offered compensation.
Petitioner Alleges Violation Of Constitutional Rights
The petitioner moved the High Court against the proposed demolition.
He argued that the action was arbitrary and illegal. He also said the authorities had not issued any prior notice.
Further, he claimed that the proposed demolition violated Sections 146 and 147 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.
He also relied on Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution.
Corporation Says Shops Were Encroachments
The Municipal Corporation opposed the plea.
It claimed that the shops stood on a public road and amounted to encroachments.
The Corporation relied on Section 405 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955. It argued that this provision allows removal of encroachments without prior notice.
Therefore, according to the Corporation, it had no duty to follow natural justice before removing the shops.
It also said that it had already published a road development plan. In addition, it claimed that officials had orally asked the petitioner to remove the structures.
Meanwhile, the High Court had passed a status quo order and restrained demolition.
Court Relies On Olga Tellis Principle
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation.
In that case, the Supreme Court held that authorities must normally give a hearing before taking action that affects individuals.
However, the Supreme Court also recognised an exception. Authorities may act without prior hearing only when urgent circumstances demand immediate action.
The High Court then examined Section 405 of the 1955 Act.
It noted that this provision is similar to Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888.
Section 405 allows the Commissioner to remove structures from public roads without prior notice. However, the Court clarified that this power does not create a blanket exemption from natural justice.
Natural Justice Can Be Skipped Only In Limited Cases
The Court held that the Corporation can remove illegal encroachments under Section 405.
However, it must normally issue notice and hear the affected person.
The Court said authorities may skip this process only in limited situations. These include urgent cases, recent encroachments, or attempts to re-occupy public space.
The Court observed that Section 405 excludes natural justice “by way of exception” and “not as a general rule.”
Court Notes Petitioner’s Long Possession
The Court found that the petitioner appeared to have long-standing possession of the two shops bearing D.No. 41/1587 and D.No. 41/1588.
It also noted that the petitioner claimed ownership through a registered document.
Therefore, the Court held that the authorities had to issue notice. They also had to give him a reasonable hearing.
The Court said the authorities must pass a speaking order in accordance with law.
Authorities Directed To Hold Fair Enquiry
The High Court allowed the writ petition.
It directed the municipal authorities to follow the principles of natural justice.
The Court also directed them to give the petitioner a fair hearing, consider his claim of long-standing possession, and complete the enquiry in accordance with law.
