Ganapathiraju Lakshmi Narasimha Raju v. Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By District Panchayat

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI W.P.No.36577 of 2012

ORDER

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Memo bearing No.85/2010-B1(Pts), dated 25.07.2012 issued by the District Panchayat Officer, Ranga Reddy District and the consequential proceedings of the second respondent-Gram Panchayat, Boduppal, Ghatkesar Mandal, dated 6.11.2012.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri Narender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, apart from perusing the material available before the Court.

The petitioner herein claims to be the owner of the property forming part of Plot No.255, totally admeasuring 200 square yards, situated in Sy.Nos.143, 153, 154 and 163 (part), part of Laxminagar Colony, Boduppal Village and Gram Panchayat, Ghatkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. According to the petitioner, he purchased the said plot by way of registered sale deed bearing document No.12348/03, dated 13.10.2003 for valuable consideration. Earlier, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.21332 of 2010 against the 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat, questioning a notice dated 17.8.2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by way of an order dated 15.3.2011, keeping it open to the respondent-Gram Panchayat to follow due procedure and take necessary action in the matter after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. While the things being so, the District Panchayat Officer, by way of the impugned Memo dated 25.07.2012, directed the

Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Boduppal, to remove the encroachments and constructions in Sy.Nos.143, 153, 154, 163, part of Laxminagar Colony, alleged to have been made by the petitioner herein, with the police assistance. As a consequence of the same, the Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent Gram Panchayat by way of a letter bearing No.GPB/2012-2013, dated 6.11.2012 requested the Station House Officer, Medipalli Police Station to give police protection for undertaking the process of demolition in terms of the District Panchayat Officer's Memo dated 25.7.2012. Challenging the validity and the legal sustainability of the said Memo dated 25.7.2012 and the letter dated 6.11.2012 of the 1st and 2nd respondents respectively, the present writ petition is filed. This Court on 27.11.2012 directed the respondents not to undertake any demolition.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, principles of natural justice and in deviation to the order of this Court in W.P.No.21332 of 2010. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents did not issue any notice to the petitioner herein nor afforded any opportunity of hearing as directed in the earlier writ petition. According to the petitioner, the said action is not only in contravention of the earlier orders but also violative of principles of natural justice. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the petitioner herein completed the construction strictly in accordance with the permission granted by the 2nd respondent vide permission No.774/09-10, dated 11.2.2010.

In the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat, it is stated that the Gram Panchayat granted permission

for construction of the house in the month of February, 2010 vide proceedings No.774/2009-10, dated 11.2.2010, but the petitioner constructed the house in deviation to the approved plan. No counter-affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent-District Panchayat Officer, denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition.

There is absolutely no controversy on the reality that earlier the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No. 21332 of 2010, questioning a notice issued by the 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court, keeping it open to the respondent-Gram Panchayat to follow due procedure and take necessary action in the matter after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The counteraffidavit filed by the 2nd respondent is absolutely silent as to the issuance of any notice to the petitioner pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.21332 of 2010. There is no denial by the 1st respondent of the allegation made by the petitioner that without issuing any notice and affording opportunity of being heard, the respondent resorted to impugned action.

It is a settled and well established proposition of law that any action which has civil consequences must necessarily be preceded by notice and opportunity of hearing to the individuals likely to be affected by such action. In the instant case, the said elementary principle of law is completely given go by. Apart from this, this Court in the earlier round of litigation specifically directed the respondent-Gram Panchayat to follow due procedure and take necessary action in the matter after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The said order is followed in breach.

impugned proceedings issued by the 1st and 2nd respondents cannot sustain for judicial scrutiny and they are liable to be set aside. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the Memo dated 25.7.2012 issued by the 1st respondent-District Panchayat Officer and the consequential proceedings dated 6.11.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent-Gram Panchayat. However, it is open for the authorities to proceed in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made supra. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI 29th November, 2016 rkk