Departure From Natural Justice Principle An Exception, Not The Rule While Exercising Power To Clear Illegal Encroachments U/S 405 AP Municipal Corporations Act : Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Court noted that only in urgent cases, recent encroachments, or attempts to re-occupy public land can immediate action be taken without delay.
Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has clarified that while exercising powers under Section 405 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, deviation from the principles of natural justice is permissible only in exceptional circumstances such as urgency or recent encroachments.
The Court noted that such departure is an exception and not the general rule, and ordinarily, affected persons must be afforded a fair hearing before any demolition action.
Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad observed, “…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 if the encroacher attempts to re-occupy the public space, the requirement of following Principles of Natural Justice can be dispensed with; and 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’”.
Advocate Vigneswara Reddy appeared for the petitioner and appearing and P. Vengala Reddy, Standing Counsel appeared for the Municipal Corporations.
The petitioner, K. Sreenivasulu, claimed ownership of two shops in Kadapa, constructed on land purchased by his father via a registered sale deed in 1967. The petitioner provided evidence of property tax payments and electricity connections for the premises.
However, the Kadapa Municipal Corporation identified these structures as encroachments during a road development plan implementation and issued oral instructions for their demolition without a formal written notice.
The petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus, pursuant to which, on February 6, 2026, the Court granted an interim status quo order after noting that Section 405 might not authorize demolition without following natural justice.
The Corporation defended its actions by citing Section 405 of the Act, 1955, arguing it was not statutorily obligated to issue notice for clearing road obstructions.
The Court relied on the landmark Supreme Court decisions in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn. (1985) 3 SCC 545 and Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1997) 11 SCC 121 to interpret Section 405. The ratio decidendi established is that the exclusion of natural justice is an exception, not the rule; it is reserved for recent encroachments or urgent dangers.
The Court reasoned that since the petitioner demonstrated long-standing possession and a "semblance of ownership" through registered documents, the Corporation’s discretion under Section 405 must be exercised reasonably.
The Court while allowing the writ petition, directed the respondent authorities to strictly adhere to the principles of natural justice. The authorities are required to conduct an inquiry, provide a fair hearing to the petitioner, and subsequently pass a "Speaking Order" in accordance with the law. This order must be communicated to the petitioner before any further action is taken regarding the subject shops.
Cause Title: K. Sreenivasulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Writ Petition No. 3506 of 2026)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Vigneswara Reddy, V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, Advocates.
Respondents: P. Vengala Reddy, Standing Counsel.