*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY +WRIT PETITION No.12647 of 2002 % Dated: 30-10-2008 # Mangali Chinna Rama Subbanna & others. Petitioners VERSUS $ The Executive Engineer, Road and Buildings Department, Dhone, Kurnool District & others. Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioners: Mr. T. Nagarjuna Reddy ^Counsel for Respondents 1&2: AGP for Revenue. Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri Koneti Raja Reddy <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1. (1985) 3 SCC 545 2. AIR 1981 SC 136 3. (1999) 6 SCC 237 4. (2000) 7 SCC 529 5. (2005) 3 SCC 409 6. (2006) 8 SCC 647 7. (2006) 8 SCC 776 8. (1996) 3 SCC 364 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12647 of 2002 Between: Mangali Chinna Rama Subbanna & others. … Petitioners AND The Executive Engineer, Road and Buildings Department, Dhone, Kurnool District & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri Koneti Raja Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12647 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is ﬁled for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from their respective shops in Sy.No.945 of Peapully Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. Heard Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the record. The petitioners have been running their petty businesses by raising wooden bunks in Sy.No.945 of Peapully Village facing the NH-7 highway in Bangalore – Kurnool sector. Their grievance is that without any notice, respondent No.3 is seeking to evict them. The counter aﬃdavits ﬁled by respondent Nos.1 and 3 reveal that some of the petitioners located their bunks on the land belonging to the National Highway Authority and some others on the land belonging to respondent No.3 Grampanchayat. Respondent No.3 speciﬁcally pleaded that in respect of the land occupied by some of the petitioners in Sy.No.945, a scheme for construction of shopping complex to earn revenue to the Grampanchayat was evolved and technical and administrative sanctions are obtained from the higher authorities. It also further pleaded that it passed unanimous resolution No.22 dated 31.05.2002 to remove the encroachments and to construct building complex. The fact that the petitioners are in occupation of the land belonging to either National Highway Authority of India or the Peapully Grampanchayat is not disputed by the petitioners. But the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the action of the respondents in seeking to dispossess them without issuing notice is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence the same is liable to be invalidated. I have not felt impressed by this contention. In recent past, the Constitutional Courts in India deviated from the traditional view that non-observance of the principles of natural justice itself is a ground to invalidate the action as held in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation[1] and S.L.Kapoor vs. Jagmohan[2] and recognized the ‘Prejudice’ and ‘Useless formality’ theories. It is held by a catena of decisions that if on the undisputed facts the order passed or action taken is not illegal and no useful purpose would have been served by serving a prior notice, the action taken or order passed cannot be invalidated. (M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India[3], Aligarh Muslim University vs. Mansoor Ali Khan[4], Karnataka SRTC vs. S.G. Kotturappa [5], Punjab National Bank vs. Manjeet Singh[6], P.D. Agarwal vs. State Bank of India[7] and State Bank of Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma[8]). In the instant case, since the petitioners have admitted that they are in occupation of the land, which either belongs to the Grampanchayat or National Highway Authority of India without any permission from either of the authorities, the action of the respondents in seeking to evict them is unexceptionable. Even if a notice was given to the petitioners, in the face of their admission that they are in unauthorized occupation of the land, they would not have been in a position to oﬀer any semblance of explanation to justify their continuance on the land. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere with the proposed action of the respondents in seeking to evict the petitioners from the land in question. This Court is required to take notice of the fact that in view of the interim order granted by it in the year 2002, the petitioners had the beneﬁt of remaining in possession of the disputed land for more than six years period. This, in my view, is itself suﬃcient to mitigate the hardship, if any, that would have been caused to the petitioners if they were evicted without notice. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.15176 of 2002 and WVMP.No.2284 are also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 30.10.2008 ES LR copies to be marked. [1] (1985) 3 SCC 545 [2] AIR 1981 SC 136 [3] (1999) 6 SCC 237 [4] (2000) 7 SCC 529 [5] (2005) 3 SCC 409 [6] (2006) 8 SCC 647 [7] (2006) 8 SCC 776 [8] (1996) 3 SCC 364