HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1178 of 2014 Date: 11.09.2014 Between:
Amadalavalasa Municipality Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District.
… Appellant And Duppala Simhachalam & others.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No. 1178 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) By the consent of both the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for hearing and the same is being disposed of.
It appears the respondents/writ petitioners approached the learned Trial Judge seeking a direction restraining the municipal authorities from evicting them from the place of their business. It is recorded by the learned Trial Judge that for the last 80 years the writ petitioners have been selling vegetables in the open place located in Sy.No.90/P of Amadalavalasa Town and without any notice and without passing any order, the 2nd respondent is attempting to demolish the structures erected by them and this action of the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. His Lordship also recorded the statement of the 2nd respondent that the writ petitioners have already been evicted and the structures erected by them have been demolished. The learned Trial Judge could not find that any notice was served on the writ petitioners or not. The legal principle recorded by His Lordship, as submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, is that without following due process of law no one should be evicted from the property in question.
Learned counsel for the appellant Municipality says that notices have already been issued to all the respondents/writ petitioners and because of the impugned order of the learned Trial Judge nothing can be proceeded with.
Learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners submitted that no notice has been served upon the writ petitioners.
We therefore direct the municipal authority that irrespective of service of notice, as claimed by the writ petitioners, they shall serve additional notice to all the persons, who are still in occupation, and those who were physically evicted or not and give them an opportunity of hearing. If any person did not receive any notice, the municipal authority shall give public notice. Upon hearing them, if it is found that they do not have any right to occupy their respective places of business to sell their vegetables, those who were evicted should not be brought back and those who are still in occupation should be evicted, unless they themselves vacate the place. We desire that the municipal authority will consider to prepare scheme for establishment of market, so these persons who are evicted and would be evicted may be rehabilitated in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. It is open for the parties to approach the learned Trial Judge for disposal of the writ petition by producing this order, as nothing remains to be decided in it.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
Date: 11.09.2014
ES