sri Deoa Kondaiah v. 1. The State of Telangana Stale' Represented by the Principal

Petition Under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the issuance of impugned notice dated 28'11-2014 bearing No. G2I3/TPB 0t2014 by the 2nd Respondent is illegal, bad and oolourable exercise of powers vested in him and also in violation of Art. 14, 't9 and 300-A of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same' NO:l O 2014 WPMP.NO: 46084 0F 2014 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the impugned notice of the 2nd respondent dated 2B-1 t-2014 bearing Notice No. G2t3tTPBOl2O'l4 pending disposal of this writ petition' Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. YOGITA PRAKASH' ADVOCI fE FOR SRI T.S.PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR I{CPL ADMN Afl ) URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI F.SRIDHAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondent No.3 : -- The Court made the following ORDER a, ,,, I ..1 HOIY'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARIIYANA ALISHETTY WRIT PETITION No.3682O of 2OL4 ORDER: This writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondent No.2 in issuing impugned notice dated 2a.ll.2Ol4 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, to set aside the same.

2. Heard Ms.Yogita Prakash, learned Counsel representing Sri T.S.Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel for pctitioncr on record and Sri.P.Sridhar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the absolute owner of land admcasuring 9O0 Sq.yrds in Sy.No.37, situated at Khammam, having purchased the same under registered sale deed No-6999 o[ 2OO9, dated ll.l2.20O9; that the petitioner scld an extcnt of 20O Sq.yrds to one Suryadevara Balakrishna Rajahamsa, uide registered sale deed No.91 of 2OlO, dated 17.12.2009, rn'ho in turn sold the said extent uide registered saie deed No.3762 of 2O11, dated

13.05.2011, to one Kotha Jagannaciha Rao i.e., rcspondent No.3 herein. Thus, petitioner is the absolute ou,ner and possessor of -NA,J W.)'. tro.36820 of 2014 2 balance land admeasuring 700 Sq.yrds in Sy. \ r.37; that the respondent No.3 tried to interfere with tJle possession of petitioner's land and as such, petitioner has fil :d a suit uide O.S.No.34O of 2012, on the frle of Principal Jur,i rr Civil Judge, Khammam, for injunction and interim Order ras also been granted in the said suit; that the petitioner t,r safeguard his land, applied for construction of compound wall r rrd paid fee as directed by respondent No.2 and has constructe,l the compound wall. While the matter stood thus, responrl :nt No.3 had submitted a representation dated 31.12.2013 t l respondents' corporation alleging that petitioner constructec :he compound wall by encroaching upon his land and r-l ereafter, filed W.P.No-6299 of 2Ol4 for removal of said compc und wal[; that the said writ petition was disposed of on O5.0 i.20 14, \^ ith a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the represcntation submitted by respondent No.3 by duly giving not le to petitioner I as well as respondent No.3 and pass a r'( asoned order, communicate the same and take further actior if requirecl in accordance with law.

4. Pursuant to Order dated 05.03.2014 in I /.P.No.6299 of 2O14, respondent No.2 issued notice on 08.() '2014, to the petitioner, however, the same was received by r[ e petitioner on

15.O7.2O14, and the petitioner submitted z [etter dated , /. .t I l LNA,,) W.P.No.36820 of 2014 3

21.O7.2OL4, to respondent No.2 seeking further time for hearing and produce the docurnents, however, without considbring the said representation, respondent No.2 issued impugned notice dated 28.11.2014, under Section 636 of HMC Act, 1955. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that though the petitioner submitted a letter dated 2l-O7.2014, seeking further time for hearing and to produce the documents to respondent No.2, without granting further time and without considering the request made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 had issued impugned final notice dated 28.11.2014, under Section 636 of the HMC Act, for demolition, which is illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 u'ould submit that notice dated O8.07.2014, was issucd by respondent No.2 in compliance of Order dated 05.03-2O t4 passed in W.P.No.6299 of 2OL4 and despite giving an opportunity, petitioner did not appear and has requested further time. In fact, the notice dated Oa.O7.2OL4 was served on thc pctitioner on 15.O7 .2014 arrd the impugned notice \r,as issued on

28.LL.2014 i.e., after 4 months, therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and is liable to be set aside. '1 -NA,J Il'.'.No.36820 of 2014 4

7. Perusal of the record would disclose thrl in response to notice dated 08.O7 .2O14, petitioner submittec a letter dated

21.07 .2014 to respondent No.2 seeking time or hearing and also to produce documents. No material is p1a( :d on record as to whether the request of the petitioner was considered and further opportunity has been a{Iorded to the 1 etitioner or the same was rejected. When a specifrc request hir r been made by the petitioner to grant time for hearing an c production of documents, the respondent No.2 ought to halr considered the same and an opportunity should have been give r before issuing hnal notice- Further, in the final notice dated ltl .11.2014, there is no reference of the letter dated 2l.OT .2OL4 t tbmitted by the petitioner and therefore, in considered opinirr r of this Court impugned notice dated 2a.ll.2ol4, is uns rstainable and accordingly set aside.

8. In view of above discussion, the writ peti ion is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to ssue notice to ) petitioner as well as respondent No.3 afresh I rd take further action strictly in accordance with law, duly a:1 rrding them an opportunity of hearing. Respondent No.2 shall <x mplete the said exercise within a period of three months from th : date of receipt of a copy o[ this Order. There shall be no order it to costs. LNA.,] tr.P.No.36820 of 20it Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalj stand 5 closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- S.M LLIKARJUNA R S T REG R l,: I I To Khammam District_

1. The Prin_cipal Secretary, Municipal Administration ^ State^of Telangana at fvOeraOdO. z. r ne Uommissioner. Khammam Municipal Corpora 3 f* CCs ro Gp FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DE i gE Court for the State of Te

6. Two CD Copies iE t sgr1i3rfli'$ffilry#ffit$f[5i::'PMENr tion, CTION OFFICER rt ent, Secretariat, ammam Town, H sh i SA &/, l i I 1 1 1 .4.:. t.r;i.1'-' ;HE S l,q t'.' . ',: ,,,t9- ,i: ti "ii t'I, () -rr * ' ' '-:.-' '..i-.-1.- HIGH COURT DATED:0911012025 ORDER WP.No.36820 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. i Q-t -fis z*pl*