Back
Demolition Notice Without Prior Show Cause Violates :
The has struck down a demolition notice issued by the to a resident of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, ruling that any adverse order directing removal of constructions must be preceded by a proper and a hearing. Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, sitting in single bench at Amaravati, held that the notice dated was “” for violating the fundamental principle of .
A Notice That Threatened Shelter and Livelihood
The petitioner, K.G. Venkateswara Rao, a 53-year-old resident of Kattavari Palem, Mogallamuru Village, approached the High Court under after the Assistant Executive Engineer (Irrigation Drainage Section‑IV, Amalapuram) issued a notice directing him to remove his residential house and a petty shop from land measuring 0.02 cents (97 square yards) in Survey No. 118. The notice alleged that the constructions obstructed the flow of water and granted just seven days for compliance, failing which the authorities would themselves carry out the demolition.
Rao contended that although he held no registered sale deed, he had been in continuous possession for several years, evidenced by an electricity service connection and bills in his name. His counsel argued that the notice was vague—it did not even specify the boundaries of the alleged encroached land—and that no prior or had been given, leaving the petitioner facing immediate loss of shelter and livelihood.
Court Slams for Bypassing
Appearing for the State, the Government Pleader for the sought time to obtain instructions but submitted that if the court were inclined to set aside the notice, liberty might be granted to initiate fresh action in accordance with law.
The High Court, after examining the notice, noted that although it was styled as a “notice,” its content was a direct direction to remove constructions within seven days. Crucially, the notice made no reference to any earlier or any opportunity of hearing having been afforded. Justice Cheemalapati observed:
“The impugned Notice … does not speak anything about prior issuance of any to the petitioner seeking explanation. Issuing the impugned notice containing such a direction, without issuing any prior or affording an to the petitioner, is unsustainable under law.”
The Sacred Principle of ‘’ Reaffirmed
The judgment reiterated the first and foremost principle of — —which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard. Emphasising that a precise and unambiguous notice is the first limb of this rule, the court declared:
“In the absence of a notice of the kind and such , the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of . It is after all an approved .”
By failing to issue a and denying the petitioner any chance to explain, the respondent authorities had committed a clear breach of this .
The Final Order: Demolition Notice Quashed, but Liberty to Act Afresh
Disposing of the at the admission stage itself, the court set aside the impugned notice dated . However, the order expressly preserves the State’s right to take fresh action against the petitioner if so advised—provided it follows by first issuing a clear and granting a of being heard. No costs were awarded.
Thus, while the immediate threat of demolition has been lifted, the judgment does not foreclose proceedings against the petitioner; it merely requires the administration to act within the constitutional bounds of fair procedure. The ruling sends a strong signal that even where public authorities believe an encroachment exists, they cannot short-circuit the principles of and must first hear the affected person.
