Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

Andhra High Court Halt Demolition of YSRCP Office : Demolition Only If Public Interest or Safety Is Affected

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Andhra High Court Stresses Due Process and Fair Hearing Before Demolition of Alleged Unauthorized Constructions on Leased Land for Party Offices.

In a recent landmark decision, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice B. Krishna Mohan, has directed the state authorities to follow due process before proceeding with the demolition of buildings constructed by the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP). The judgment underscores the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice and fair hearing in administrative actions, specifically in cases involving alleged unauthorized constructions on leased land meant for party offices.

The petitioners, YSRCP, represented by its State General Secretary Leila Appi Reddy and District President Pyla Narasimhaiah, challenged the provisional demolition orders issued by various municipal and urban development authorities across Andhra Pradesh. These orders targeted buildings constructed on leased government land, alleging unauthorized constructions. The YSRCP argued that their constructions were compliant with legal requirements and sought regularization of any deviations.

The court highlighted the need for respondent authorities to verify records and consider the petitioners' explanations before taking any coercive steps. "The power of demolition should not be resorted to unless overwhelming public interest is involved," stated Justice B. Krishna Mohan, emphasizing the significance of acting fairly and objectively in consonance with the law.

Justice B. Krishna Mohan reinforced the requirement for due process and fair hearing in administrative actions. The court noted, "The petitioners' buildings were constructed by complying with all required provisions of law, and any alleged violations are curable defects." The judgment stressed that demolitions should only occur if deviations are not in public interest or cause public nuisance or danger.

The judgment extensively discussed the principles of evaluating administrative actions in urban development cases. It reiterated that administrative authorities must provide opportunities for parties to present their cases fully. "At every stage of the proceedings, a due opportunity of hearing shall be given to the petitioners," the court directed, ensuring transparency and fairness in decision-making processes.

Justice B. Krishna Mohan remarked, "The power of demolition should be exercised only if the deviations made during the construction are not in public interest or hazardous to public safety. Minor, minimal, or trivial deviations that do not affect the public at large should not result in demolition."

The Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision is a significant affirmation of the judiciary's role in safeguarding due process and fairness in administrative actions. By mandating that authorities follow due procedure and provide fair hearings, the judgment ensures that actions taken against alleged unauthorized constructions are just and lawful. This decision is expected to influence future cases, reinforcing the legal framework for addressing issues of urban development and unauthorized constructions.

 

Date of Decision: July 04, 2024

Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party (YSRCP) vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Similar News