Mr K. Sreenivasulu’s father bought 0.02 cents of land in Kadapa Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa district through a sale deed (document No.702 of 1967) that was registered on March 13, 1967, and built two shops on that land. The municipality assigned him two door numbers and he also got electricity connections for these shops. He has also been regularly paying the property tax and electricity bills.
However, one day the municipality decided to widen the road as the area had become really busy and wanted to demolish both the shops on this ground. According to Sreenivasulu, this demolition drive was done without any land acquisition process or compensation.
Advocate P. Vengal Reddy, Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation told the Andhra Pradesh High Court that under Section 405 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 the corporation isn’t legally required to adhere to the Principles of Natural Justice when it uses its power under Section 405 of the Act, 1955 to clear encroachments blocking roads or when demolishing private properties for expansion or widening of the existing road.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the advocate’s arguments and on April 15, 2026, provided relief to Sreenivasulu whose shop was set to be demolished for a proposed road-widening project of the municipal authorities. The high court said that as a general rule, municipal authorities must follow the principles of natural justice before demolishing a private property even in cases involving alleged encroachments.
Also read: House razed as ‘encroachment’ despite gift deed; High Court steps in and grants relief to land owner
As reported by LiveLaw, through the writ petition, Sreenivasulu argued that the action of the municipality in trying to demolish his shops was arbitrary and illegal, as no notice was given before the demolition, nor was any compensation offered.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court relied on a Supreme Court judgement (Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)) where the Supreme Court, while interpreting Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, held that giving a hearing opportunity is the normal rule where individuals affected by state action are ordinarily given an opportunity to be heard.
The court said dispensing with such requirements can only be sustained under exceptional or urgent circumstances which justify immediate action, as reported by LiveLaw. The Andhra Pradesh High Court also said that the power of the municipal corporation to not follow the principles of natural justice under Section 405 can be an exception and not a general rule.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court said that under Section 405, which is in pari materia with Section 314 of the 1988 Act, and states that the Commissioner can remove structures on public roads without giving prior notice.
The high court said that it stated that, “while the corporation is exercising its power to clear the illegal encroachments under Section 405 of the Act, 1955, only in cases of urgency which brook no delay, or in cases where the encroachments are of recent origin or where the encroacher attempts to re-occupy the public space, the requirement of following Principles of Natural Justice can be dispensed with.
The high court said that in all such cases, “departure" from the Principle of “Audi Alteram Partem” rule is presumed to have been intended by the legislature. Therefore, Section 405 is so designed as to exclude the Principles of Natural Justice “by way of exception‟ and “not as a general rule.”
Therefore, the high court thus said that prima facie it appears that Sreenivasulu has been in long standing possession of the two shops and he is claiming not only a semblance of a possessory right but a right of ownership on the strength of the registered sale deed document.
Under these circumstances, the high court said it would be incumbent upon the Municipal authorities to not only issue notice but also to provide a reasonable hearing before passing a Speaking Order in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the petition, with a direction to the municipal authorities to follow the Principles of Natural Justice and a fair hearing in view of the alleged long standing possession, and accordingly complete the enquiry, as reported by LiveLaw.
