Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 25193
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Abhinand Kumar Shavili, Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, JJ
The Cheif Secretary to Government – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Sudhakar Reddy – Respondent
APPEAL SUIT. No. 107 of 2008
State authorities must adhere to due process, including providing notice and a hearing, before demolishing structures. Arbitrary or discriminatory demolition without following the rule of law constitutes an actionable wrong, making officials liable for damages despite claims of acting in an official capacity.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections 79 and 80 - Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 - Section 215 - Damages for illegal demolition of structures - Suit against government officials in official capacities - Maintainability - Held, non-joinder of State is not a ground to dismiss suit where Chief Secretary is impleaded; authorities are bound to act in accordance with law before demolition - Need for prior show cause notice, consideration of objections, and requirement of a final speaking order prior to demolition - Failure of authorities to show due process renders the official act of demolition arbitrary and liable for damages. (Paras 3, 28, 29, 30, 33)
(B) Property Law - Private patta land versus government land - Burden of proof - Revenue records, pahanies, and Khasra Pahanies showing private ownership are entitled to presumption of truth - Failure of official authorities to establish land as government property or to initiate rectification of revenue records renders their claims void - Absence of due process in demolition of structures, specifically when others in the same survey number were left untouched, amounts to discrimination and arbitrary exercise of power. (Paras 18, 20, 26, 31)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, claiming ownership of land and intending to construct a healthcare facility, proceeded with construction under the belief of deemed permission after the local municipal body failed to respond to their application. Revenue officials, alleging the land was government property, demolished the structures without prior notice or adherence to due process. The plaintiffs sought damages for the demolition, loss of professional income, and mental agony. The trial court decreed the suit, awarding damages and holding specific officials liable.
Findings of Court:
The court found the land to be private patta land, as reflected in long-standing historical revenue records. The government's claim that the land vested in them was unsubstantiated by evidence or procedural compliance. The officials engaged in high-handed action by selectively demolishing the plaintiffs' structures while sparing others in the same survey number.
Issues: Whether the property in dispute is government land or private patta land; whether the demolition was legal; and whether the damages awarded by the trial court were justified.
Ratio Decidendi: Authorities are constitutionally and legally mandated to follow due process, including the issuance of a show cause notice and providing an opportunity for hearing before demolishing any structure. Arbitrary and discriminatory demolition without a legally valid order and notice violates the rule of law and warrants compensation for damages and mental agony.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; the award for professional loss is set aside, while the rest of the decree stands.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of land ownership, dispute over inam status, and claims for demolition damages. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. procedural compliance in suits against the state and arguments regarding property titles. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. admissibility of revenue records and determining private versus government land status. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 4. requirement of due process and notice before administrative demolition of private structures. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. liability of public officials for damages and exclusion of speculative professional loss claims. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
This Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant/defendant against the Judgment and Decree dated 04.04.2007 in O.S. No. 3 of 2004 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant to grant damages for illegal demolition of the structures was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the trial Court.
I. BRIEF FACTS:
3. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.3 of 2004 against the defendants seeking damages for illegal demolition of structures raised by the plaintiffs and also for damages for defamation, professional loss caused to the plaintiffs and exemplary and punitive damages. The brief averments of the plaint are as under:
a) The plaintiffs being leading medical practitioners of Jagtial Town and who are having ultra-modern facilities and ultra-modern equipments, had intended to construct a decent Nursing Home in the Town at an estimated cost of Rs.60,00,000/-. Thus, the plaintiffs acquired Ac.0-08 guntas of land in Sy.No.465 of Mothe Village bearing Municipal No.7-6-223 and 7-6-224 within the municipal limits of Jagtial having purchased it from its owners, Dannapuneni Ravi Kumar and Dannapuneni Sridhar Rao under registered documents bearing Nos.646 and 647 of 1995, after verifying their title. The said property is within the municipal limits since 1946 and the municipality has been collecting taxes since 1953 from the lawful owners of Sy.No.465. The Municipality (Defendant No.11) granted permission to the vendors of the plaintiffs to raise compound wall on 6-2-1995. The District Collector, Karimnagar (Defendant No.2) in his Order dated 11.07.1967, after perusing the report of the Tahsildar, Jagtial, dated 13-9-1965 permitted construction of a Cinema Theater in Sy.No.465. In a suit in O.S.No.17 of 1982, which was filed for partition between the private parties, the land in Sy.No.465, was shown to be a private land and a preliminary decree for partition was also passed therein.
b) On a misleading report of the Mandal Revenue Officer, the then Revenue Divisional Officer, initiated proceedings on 15.02.1995 and accordingly issued notices on 16.02.1995 assuming the land in suit Survey Number to be Temple Inam land and required the occupants of the said Survey Number to show cause as to why they should not be evicted. Though he issued notices to one D. Jagga Rao and Y. Laxmi Raji Reddy, who died about 20 years back, deliberately avoided to serve notices on the Inamdars and real owners and so also on the Municipality. In fact, the land in question is not inam land but patta land. Since the Municipality failed to accord permission inspite of lapse of statutory period, the plaintiffs filed O.S. No.37 of 1995 in Sub Court, Jagtial and though the Government is not a party to the suit, the Government Officials directed the Assistant Government Pleader to assist the Standing Counsel of the Municipality. Since the Municipality, Jagtial promised the plaintiffs to accord permission, the plaintiffs had withdrawn the suit and the Municipal Council passed a resolution directing the Commissioner to accord permission to the plaintiffs, but the Commissioner failed to do so. The plaintiffs neither received permission nor any order rejecting their applicat
