IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15461 of 2002 Between: S.SRINIVAS S/O late Ramaiah, r/o 3-2-86, Nehru Gunj, Nalgonda. ..... PETITIONER AND Nalgonda Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Nalgonda. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an applropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records of the impugned notice bearing case no.2072/E/2002 dt.8.8.2002 issued by the respondent herein and quash the same as it is contrary to Law, illegal capricious and violative of provisions and Rule of Act. VI of 1965 and consequently direct the respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building bearing No.3-2-86 Nehru Gunj of Nalgonda Town belonging to Petitioner without due process of law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent No.: Sri S.Nageswara Reddy The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 15461 of 2002 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the validity of notice dated 8.8.2002 issued by the Commissioner, Nalgonda Municipality in exercise of powers under Section 192 of A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 for removal alleged encroachment. It is the case of the petitioner that his father late Sri Ramaiah and uncle Sri S.Venkaiah have jointly purchased house baring No.3-2-86 in Nehru Gunj of Nalgonda Town by a registered sale deed dated 8.9.1969 registered as document No.10590. It is stated in the affidavit that in the family partition, the said house bearing No.3-2-86 fell to the share of the petitioner and his brother and they are in possession by paying necessary house tax to the respondent – Municipality. It is his case that he has not encroached on any property of the Municipality so as to remove the said structures pursuant to the impugned notice. This writ petition was admitted as early as on 20.8.2002 and interim orders were passed on the aforesaid date in W.P.M.P.No.19372 of 2002. The interim orders passed by this Court are in force all along. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent – municipality. It is the case of the petitioner that though he has not encroached and the temporary shed which is ordered to be removed, is his own property purchased under a registered sale deed, the impugned notice is issued without following the due procedure contemplated under the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act. Taking into consideration the interim order passed by this Court which is in force for the last six and half years and in the absence of any counter affidavit by the respondent, I deem it proper that the petitioner shall be given an opportunity before taking any action so as to examine whether temporary shed which is the subject matter of the impugned notice is constructed by encroaching on the municipal land or not. Even a perusal of the impugned notice makes it clear that there is no indication of having given any prior notice and opportunity to the petitioner and it appears that the impugned notice is issued based on a repot of Town Planning supervisor dated 2.8.2002. When it is the claim of the petitioner that the said property is a private property purchased under registered sale deed with document No.10590, in the absence of any provision under Section 192 of the A.P. Municipalities Act to dispense with observance of the principles of natural justice, it is obligatory on the part of the respondent to give an opportunity to the petitioner by way of show cause notice before recording a finding that the property in question is constructed by encroaching on the municipal land. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notice dated 8.8.2002 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner has constructed any shed or structure by encroaching the municipality land, this order shall not preclude the respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders by giving opportunity to him. No order as to costs. ___________ 10-6- 2009 asp