Natural justice must be upheld in administrative proceedings, and disputes of ownership should be resolved before competent authorities, with the speaking order being appealable.

ORDER :

K. Lakshman, J.

Heard Sri Katika Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Krishna, learned standing counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent. Perused the record.

2. Petitioners herein are claiming that they are absolute owners and possessors of Plot Nos.39 to 49, total admeasuring 1814 square yards vide Sale deed bearing document No.7430 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012 and Plot Nos.50 to 53 i.e., total extent 748 square yards vide Sale Deed No.7431 of 2012 dated 31.12.2012 and Plot bearing Nos.54 to 61 i.e., total extent 1080 square yards vide Sale deed No.7432 of 2012. They have also obtained 25 building permit orders from 2^nd respondent, the details of the same are specifically mentioned in impugned speaking order dated 15.02.2025. All are dated 10.07.2023. There is no dispute with regard to the same.

3. According to the petitioners they are proceeding with construction in accordance with the said building permit orders. Even then, 2nd respondent is interfering with the said construction on the complaint lodged by 3^rd respondent.

4. 2^nd respondent has also issued hearing notice dated 06.11.2024 directing the petitioners to appear for hearing on 09.11.2024. In the said hearing notice dated 06.11.2024, there is reference to the representation dated 19.07.2024 submitted by 3rd respondent alleging open spaces in Sy.Nos.743, 746, 747, 748, 749 and 750 situated at Nadergul village have been converted into plots and petitioners are making construction of houses illegally and requested to take action against petitioners. Therefore, on consideration of the said representation, 2^nd respondent issued hearing notice dated 06.11.2024. Petitioners filed a writ petition vide W.P.No.1452 of 2025 challenging the said hearing notice.

5. The said writ petition came up for hearing on 21.01.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have submitted representations pursuant to the hearing notice dated 06.11.2024 stating that they have valid permissions for construction on the said survey numbers. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent submitted that petitioners have not produced valid documents including registered sale deeds to show their ownership over the land and they are proceeding with the construction over the subject land. This Court considered the said submissions made by the petitioners and 2nd respondent. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 21.01.2025 and paragraph No.4 of the said order is relevant and the same is extracted below:

“Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, it is evident that the respondent No.2 must verify the documents to be produced by the petitioner which are in the possession of the petitioners to ascertain whether the petitioners can claim ownership or any permission to make constructions over the survey numbers forming part of the impugned hearing notice. Since it is also the petitioner’s case that no hearing was conducted by the respondents on 09.11.2024, W.P.No.1452 of 2025 is disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to call the petitioners for a fresh hearing. The petitioners shall produce all relevant documents in their possession to contest the notice. The petitioners relied on the second paragraph of the impugned notice which records that a few permissions were granted to the petitioners in respect of the survey numbers and constructions presently going on. It is made clear that pending the hearing none of the parties shall proceed with construction or with disturbance to possession in the meantime until the re