HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1365 OF 2014 DATED:6.11.2014 Between:
V. Balaji … Appellant And The State of Telangana Represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department Telangana State Secretariat Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.1365 OF 2014 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) The appeal is admitted.
The learned counsel for the respondents is present and he takes notice of the appeal.
We dispose of the appeal by the following judgment and order.
The writ petitioner, appellant before us, approached the Hon’ble single Judge with the following prayer.
“…to issue a Writ, more particularly a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring,-
a. the Impugned Order dated 24.3.2014 of the respondent No.2, i.e., the District Panchayat Officer (FAC)-cum-Second Appellate Authority, under Section 128(2) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Ranga Reddy District, Yatri Nivas, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad – 500 001, Telangana State, passed in Roc. No.537/2013-B1(Pts.) insofar as it directs the Gram Panchayat, Dammaiguda to verity the open area left for Gram Panchayat in the layout plan of P.S. Rao Nagar and to confirm that the Plot of 110 Sq. yards is not part of open land as being illegal and contrary to the Order/Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No.19144 of 2013 and,
b. consequently, direct the Respondent No.3 to grant permission to the writ petitioner for construction as per the Application dated 18.3.2013.”
By challenging the order dt.24.3.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent, the writ petitioner took a specific plea in the writ petition that without serving any notice or giving any hearing, the said order was passed and therefore there is breach of principles of natural justice. Though the appellant has taken the aforesaid plea, the learned trial Judge did not consider the same.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is correct and that His Lordship was not assisted properly to decide the question of natural justice. On that ground alone, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the learned trial Judge for fresh hearing with a request to decide the question of natural justice as raised and also other points.
The writ appeal is accordingly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There will be no order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 6.11.2014 bnr