Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 68327
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 strictly follow due process, including prior notice and hearing, before demolishing any structure. High-handed and arbitrary demolition without compliance with statutory procedures renders the state liable to pay compensation for damages and mental agony caused to the property owner.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 80 and 79 - Suit against government and public officials - Requirement of notice under Section 80 - Held, where a suit is instituted against the Chief Secretary, the requirement of representing the State is substantially satisfied as the signatory represents the official capacity of the State. (Para 33)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 142 - Directions for demolition of structures - Requirement of following rule of law and due process - Held, no demolition of any residential or commercial structure should be carried out without a prior show cause notice, providing an opportunity for hearing, and passing a reasoned final order. (Paras 29-31)
(C) Civil Damages - Tortious liability of state officials - High-handed demolition of private property - Compensation for damages, mental agony and harassment - Court must ensure that excessive or arbitrary exercise of power is not sustained and compensation is reasonable for the actual loss suffered. (Paras 32, 35, 36)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, medical practitioners, sought damages for the illegal and high-handed demolition of nursing home structures by government and municipal officials. The authorities claimed the land was government property vested under an abolition act, whereas the plaintiffs asserted it was private patta land, citing long-standing revenue records and municipal building permissions. The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for property loss, professional loss, and mental agony, which was contested by the defendants.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the suit property was private patta land supported by revenue records and previous judicial decrees. It held that the authorities acted in a high-handed manner without following due process of law or statutory procedures. The claim for professional loss was disallowed for lack of evidence, but the damages for property loss and mental agony were upheld.
Issues: Whether the land was government property or private patta land; whether the demolition was illegal for want of due process; and whether individual state officials could be held liable in their official/individual capacities for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that even if a land is suspected to be government property, authorities must follow the rule of law and statutory procedures for eviction or demolition. Arbitrary, non-procedural demolition constitutes a clear violation of constitutional and legal safeguards, entitling the aggrieved party to compensation for the resulting injury.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; judgment and decree set aside only to the extent of awarding damages for professional loss; remaining decree upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties' conflicting claims over land title and demolition legality. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. trial court's procedural history and initial judgment findings. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. parties' contentions regarding non-joinder, land status, and damages. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. determination of land status as private patta land. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. mandatory adherence to due process and rule of law. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. liability for illegal demolition and calculation of damages. (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 application from the Municipality, Jagtial and as such, th
