Principles of natural justice: Andhra Pradesh High Court stops demolition of shops standing since 1967

Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad of the Andhra Pradesh High Court said that exclusion of the ‘principles of natural justice’ shall be by way of exception. (Image enhanced using AI)

High court lays down key principles

• Adhering to the ‘principles of natural justice‘ is not a “rule of thumb”, and it is not inflexible and rigid.
• Exclusion of the ‘principles of natural justice’ shall be by way of exception, but not as a general rule.
• Each case depends upon its own backdrop.
• Removal of encroachment needs urgent action.
• Longer delay in removal of encroachment is associated with the danger of permitting the encroachers to claim a semblance of possessory right for obstruction and removal of the encroachment.
• If the encroachment is of a recent origin where a swift and timely action is required, the need to follow the principles of natural justice could be dispensed with.

• No one has the right to encroach on public property and claim the procedure of opportunity of hearing, which would be a tedious and time-consuming process, leading to putting a premium on high-handed and unauthorised acts of encroachment and unlawful squatting.
• If the illegal settlements or encroachments are allowed to remain untouched for a long time for the reasons best known to the authorities, a modicum of reasonable notice for removal, say two weeks or 10 days, should be given to the encroachers by way of personal service or substituted service by fixing the notice on the property, etc.
• Despite receipt of notice, if the encroacher does not vacate and puts up resistance, necessarily appropriate and reasonable force can be used to have the encroachment removed.

Background

The petitioner, a 56-year-old resident of Kadapa, claimed ownership of two shops built on land purchased by his father through a registered sale deed in 1967.

According to him, the structures had existed for decades, with municipal recognition through door numbers, electricity connections, and payment of property taxes.

Trouble arose when the municipal corporation initiated steps to widen a road in the area and allegedly sought to demolish the shops without issuing a formal notice or initiating land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Corporation’s stand

The Kadapa Municipal Corporation defended its action by invoking Section 405 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, arguing that it had the authority to remove encroachments without prior notice if they obstruct public roads.

The corporation claimed that the petitioner’s structures fell within the proposed road widening plan and constituted unauthorised encroachments.

It further contended that oral instructions had already been issued to the petitioner to remove the structures voluntarily.

Court’s analysis: Natural justice not optional

The Andhra Pradesh High Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 405 and compared it with analogous provisions interpreted by the Supreme Court, particularly in Olga Tellis vs Bombay Municipal Corporation and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs Nawab Khan Gulab Khan.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court clarified that while the law permits removal of encroachments without notice in urgent situations, such power is discretionary, not mandatory, and must be exercised fairly and reasonably.

Long possession tilts balance

Applying these principles, the Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that the petitioner had been in long-standing possession and had asserted ownership based on a registered document.

In such circumstances, the authorities were obligated to follow due process rather than resort to summary eviction.

“It would be incumbent upon the Respondent Authorities not only to issue notice but also to provide a reasonable hearing before passing a speaking order,” the Andhra Pradesh High Court held on April 9.

Final directions

Allowing the writ petition, the Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the municipal authorities to issue proper notice to the petitioner, conduct a fair hearing, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law, and communicate the decision promptly.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the ownership claim and left it open to the authorities to proceed in accordance with the law after following due process.

Bombay High Court permits Western Railway to continue Bandra demolition

On April 29, the Bombay High Court permitted Western Railway (WR) to continue the demolition drive of unauthorised and illegal structures at Garib Nagar in Bandra (East), however, it has said that the interest of slum dwellers declared eligible as per the 2021 surveys must be protected.

A bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Kamal R Khata on April 29 passed an order on a plea by the Garib Nagar Rahiwasi Welfare Sangh Society, which claimed that despite the HC having on March 18 passed an interim order directing Railways not to conduct demolition of certain structures mentioned in the petition, it had proceeded to demolish several structures belonging to eligible Project Affected Persons (PAPs).