Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 803 (AP)

SHAIK BASHA MOHIDDIN v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

2022-08-26

RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2022
JUDGMENT: Heard Sri G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development Authority and Sri Anand Surya, learned counsel representing Sri Kalava Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. 2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer: “The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings the proceedings in ROC 707/G1/2022 dated 08/2022 issued by the 2nd respondent invoking the provisions of Section 405 and 406 of Greater Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 directing the petitioner to evict the premises, an ancestral family property, in an extent 123.15 sq. yards inSy.No.30/2B/1A1, D.No.10/621, Assessment No.1013013230 at Pillai Jagannadham Street, 10th Ward, Southern side of Ballari Road, Kadapa Town, Kadapa Municipal Corporation area as illegal and arbitrary.” 3. With the consent of the parties counsel the writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage as in view of the submissions made and the order proposed to be passed there is no requirement of the counter affidavit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s mother filed O.S.No.518 of 2000 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa (S. Rahamath Bi vs. The Cuddapah Municipal Council and another) with respect to the same property which was dismissed on29.10.2004 against which she filed Appeal Suit No.111 of 2004 which was allowed by judgment and decree dated 01.10.2007, setting aside the decree of the trial court and decreeing the suit, restraining the respondents 1 and 2/defendants therein i.e the Cuddapah Municipal Council/now the Municipal Corporation, Kadapa, from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property unless and until she was evicted by the Corporation by due process of law. 5. The notice mentions about the proceedings of that suit and the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the notice which does not mention particular date but only mentions dated .08.2022. 5. The notice mentions about the proceedings of that suit and the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the notice which does not mention particular date but only mentions dated .08.2022. He submits that the copy of the notice was served to the petitioner on 23.08.2022 at 3.00 p.m and considering the seven days time granted, in the notice, the petitioner has time upto 30.08.2022, but the respondent No.2 and its authorities are pressing hard for eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. 7. Sri Anand Surya, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner may submit his reply to the notice served upon the petitioner within seven days from 23.08.2022 itself or within such time as may be granted by the Corporation and the second respondent after taking into consideration the petitioner’s reply shall pass appropriate reasoned order, in accordance with law, within the period of six weeks from the date of filing of the reply and till the final decision is taken no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner with respect to the subject matter of the notice. 8. The court finds that the impugned notice does not bear the date, except the month and the year. Therefore, the seven days period is counted from what date is not clear. In paragraph No.5 of the writ affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the notice was served to him on 23.08.2022 at 3.00 p.m. Once the notice has been given the petitioner is entitled for a reasonable time to submit the reply, even if it is a notice under Sections 405 and 406 of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall file reply to the impugned notice by 10.09.2022 before the 2nd respondent. 10. In view of the aforesaid it is provided that the petitioner shall file reply to the impugned notice by 10.09.2022 upon which the 2nd respondent shall pass appropriate, reasoned order, in accordance with law, taking into consideration the reply by following due process of law, within a period of six weeks from 10.09.2022 and till the decision is taken by the 2nd respondent or for a period of eight weeks from today whichever is earlier, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner with respect to the subject property. 11. 11. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under Section 455-A of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”), the Commissioner has the power to regularize the constructions made without obtaining sanction plan, subject to fulfilling the conditions as mentioned in Section 455-A of the Act. 12. Be that as it may, the petitioner has not yet applied for regularization, and consequently any direction in that regard at this stage is not warranted, however, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to the applicable legal provisions before appropriate forum/authority, if so advised. 13. With the above observations, and directions the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.