Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 41780
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 cannot conduct arbitrary demolitions of structures. Compliance with statutory procedures, including prior show-cause notice and personal hearing, is a constitutional mandate. Any demolition violating the rule of law makes the state liable for compensatory damages for property loss and mental agony.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 79 and 80 - Suit for damages against public officials - Maintainability - Institution of suit in both individual and official capacities provides sufficient notice and representation - Absence of State as a party does not invalidate the suit where the Chief Secretary is properly impleaded as the authorized representative. (Paras 33, 34)
(B) Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 - Section 215 - Deemed permission for building construction - Where an application for construction is not rejected within the statutory period, the builder is entitled to proceed with construction, and subsequent interference by authorities without due process or valid notice is illegal. (Paras 3, 23, 28)
(C) Principles of Natural Justice - Administrative Law - Demolition of structures - Mandatory requirement for prior show-cause notice and personal hearing before any demolition - Arbitrary exercise of power by state authorities without due procedure violates constitutional protections and the rule of law - Authorities must document the inspection and provide opportunity to address objections before resorting to demolition. (Paras 29, 30, 31)
(D) Damages - Quantification of loss - Compensation for property damage supported by evidence of construction stage and cost estimates - Quantum of damages for mental agony may be awarded, but claims for professional loss require substantive evidence and cannot be granted based on assumptions. (Paras 35, 36, 37, 39)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, medical practitioners, sought damages following the demolition of their under-construction nursing home by government officials. The authorities alleged the land was state-owned and the construction illegal. The plaintiffs contended that the land was private, that they possessed valid title, and that they had proceeded under deemed municipal permission. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the demolition to be illegal and arbitrary.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the land was private property. The authorities failed to follow mandatory procedural safeguards, including the issuance of show-cause notices required for lawful demolition. The state failed to justify the selective targeting of the plaintiffs while permitting similar structures in the same survey number.
Issues: Whether the demolition was legally justified, whether the state followed due process, and whether the plaintiffs are eligible for damages for construction loss, mental agony, and professional loss.
Ratio Decidendi: Government officials cannot act high-handedly in the exercise of power. Regardless of a claim of government ownership, the rule of law mandates that no demolition of property shall occur without prior show-cause notice, opportunity for hearing, and a reasoned final order. Arbitrary demolition without following established statutory procedures renders the authorities liable for damages, barring claims lacking evidential support.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; judgment set aside only regarding the award for professional loss.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history regarding land dispute and demolition (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. trial court issues and findings on damages (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. appellate arguments on property title and procedure (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. adjudication of land character as private patta land (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. mandatory due process and rule of law in demolition (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. assessment of damages and partial modification of decree (Para 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 application from the Municipality, Jagtial and as such, they proceeded with the construction under deemed permissio
