𝓜𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓵𝓲 𝓜𝓸𝓱𝓪𝓷 .𝓜.(ఎం. మురళీ మోహన్): THE MIND–MIRROR ARCHITECTURE OF HUMAN CONDUCT

𝓜𝓾𝓻𝓪𝓵𝓲 𝓜𝓸𝓱𝓪𝓷 .𝓜.(ఎం. మురళీ మోహన్): THE MIND–MIRROR ARCHITECTURE OF HUMAN CONDUCT: 🌺 मनोदर्पणवर्तनमाला THE MIND–MIRROR ARCHITECTURE OF HUMAN CONDUCT A Seven-Śloka Foundational Treatise on Upstream Cognitive Regulation and ...

Municipal Corporation Act — Encroachment notices — Sections 405 & 406: Notices issued under Sections 405 and 406 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, calling upon alleged encroachers to remove unauthorized constructions within seven days, cannot be sustained where the authorities have not first followed the required procedure of issuing a proper show-cause notice. [Para 1, 4–6]

 

Headnotes — Kongi Chinnaiah & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

W.P. No.24200 of 2026 — Harinath N., J. — 24.08.2026
2026:APHC:34870

1. Municipal Corporation Act — Encroachment notices — Sections 405 & 406:
   Notices issued under Sections 405 and 406 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, calling upon alleged encroachers to remove unauthorized constructions within seven days, cannot be sustained where the authorities have not first followed the required procedure of issuing a proper show-cause notice. [Para 1, 4–6]
2. Natural justice — Prior show-cause notice mandatory:
   Where the authorities propose action against alleged unauthorized occupants/encroachers, the affected persons must first be called upon to submit their explanation and produce relevant title/possession documents, before any adverse action is taken. [Paras 4–6]
3. Encroachment proceedings — Opportunity to produce documents:
   Affected occupants must be given an opportunity to place before the authorities documents supporting their claim concerning possession and enjoyment of the property. A notice directly requiring removal of the structure, without first calling for such documents, does not satisfy this requirement. [Paras 4–5]
4. Encroachment notice — Cannot be treated as show-cause notice:
   A notice requiring removal of an alleged unauthorized construction cannot be retrospectively treated as a show-cause notice merely because the occupants could have submitted documents in response to it. The notice must itself afford an opportunity to explain the claim and produce supporting documents. [Para 4]
5. Previous judicial directions — Binding procedure:
   Where, in an earlier round of litigation, the High Court had directed the municipal authority to issue a fresh show-cause notice, call for relevant documents and thereafter pass appropriate orders after due notice and hearing, the authorities were required to comply with that procedure before taking further action. [Para 3]
6. Personal hearing — Required before adverse action:
   The authorities were required to afford the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing before proceeding against them as alleged unauthorized occupants/encroachers. [Para 6]
7. Natural justice — Violation vitiates subsequent action:
   Any action taken by the respondents without issuing show-cause notices and affording an opportunity of hearing would be contrary to the principles of natural justice and the directions of the High Court. [Para 6]
8. Encroachment — Authorities' claim regarding documents does not cure procedural defect:
   The respondents contended that plot owners in the layout had produced documents whereas persons occupying the canal-side area had not produced patta certificates. The Court nevertheless held that the petitioners themselves had not been issued show-cause notices calling upon them to produce documents, and therefore the procedural defect remained. [Paras 4–5]
9. Long possession — Allegation of residence for 50 years:
   The petitioners asserted that they had been residing in the subject property for more than 50 years after constructing residential houses thereon. The Court did not finally adjudicate their title or possession; instead, it directed that their claims and documents be considered through the prescribed show-cause and hearing process. [Para 2]

Core Ratio

Before taking coercive action against alleged unauthorized occupants or encroachers under Sections 405 and 406 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, the municipal authorities must issue a proper show-cause notice calling upon the affected persons to submit their explanation and produce the relevant documents concerning their possession or title, and must afford them an opportunity of hearing. A direct encroachment/removal notice cannot be treated as a substitute for such show-cause notice. Action taken without following this procedure violates the principles of natural justice and the binding directions of the High Court. [Paras 4–6]

Final Order

• W.P.No.24200 of 2026 — Disposed of.
• The impugned Encroachment Notices dated 17.08.2026 — Set aside.
• The respondents were left at liberty to proceed in accordance with the directions of the Division Bench in W.P.(PIL) No.140 of 2022 and batch.
• Respondents must issue show-cause notices to the petitioners and afford them an opportunity of hearing before taking further action.
• Any action without following that procedure would be contrary to natural justice and the Court's directions.
• No order as to costs.
• Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stood closed. [Paras 6–7]

Suppression of material facts — Allegation requiring adjudication: An allegation that the plaintiffs suppressed an earlier partition and alienations concerning the suit property was a matter requiring adjudication on evidence and could not appropriately be conclusively determined in an appeal against the ex parte decree without affording the defendant an opportunity to contest. [Paras 14–16]

Headnotes — Shaik Jaina Vali v. Shaik Abida Khatoon & Ors.

A.S. No.254 of 2023 — D. Ramesh & Alapati Giridhar, JJ. — 24.08.2026
2026:APHC:34733

1. Ex parte decree — Appeal under Section 96(2) CPC — Maintainability:
   An appeal lies against an ex parte decree under Section 96(2) CPC. The plaintiffs' counsel ultimately conceded the maintainability of the appeal. [Para 21]
2. Ex parte decree — Defendant did not adduce evidence:
   Where the defendant had entered appearance through counsel but subsequently did not adduce evidence, and the suit was ultimately decreed ex parte, the appellate Court may treat the decree as an ex parte decree for purposes of Section 96(2) CPC. [Paras 13, 17–19]
3. Ex parte decree — Final opportunity to contest on merits:
   Where the plaintiff and his witnesses were not cross-examined and the decree was passed ex parte, the appellate Court may, in the interests of justice, afford the defendant a final opportunity to contest the suit and have the matter adjudicated on merits, subject to appropriate terms. [Para 23]
4. Order XLI Rule 27 CPC — Additional evidence — Appeal not to be decided without considering application:
   The appellant had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC seeking to adduce several registered documents which allegedly had a direct bearing on the dispute. The Court noted that the appeal was still pending and had not been decided by refusing the application for additional evidence; therefore, the appellant could not rely upon the proposition in Satish Chand Surana concerning miscarriage of justice from dismissal of an appeal without deciding an Order XLI Rule 27 application. [Paras 3, 18]
5. Title dispute — Rival registered documents — Requires trial on merits:
   Where the appellant relied upon several registered documents, including prior sale deeds and partition deeds, alleging suppression of an earlier partition and alienations, while the plaintiffs disputed their validity and effect, the truth of the rival claims required determination on the basis of oral and documentary evidence at trial. [Paras 14–16]
6. Suppression of material facts — Allegation requiring adjudication:
   An allegation that the plaintiffs suppressed an earlier partition and alienations concerning the suit property was a matter requiring adjudication on evidence and could not appropriately be conclusively determined in an appeal against the ex parte decree without affording the defendant an opportunity to contest. [Paras 14–16]
7. Ex parte decree — Natural justice — Opportunity of contest:
   In the circumstances of the case, particularly where the plaintiffs and their witnesses had not been subjected to cross-examination, the Court considered it just to restore the matter to the trial stage so that the defendant could contest the claim and invite a decision on merits. [Para 23]
8. Costs — Condition for remand:
   The indulgence of setting aside the ex parte decree and remanding the suit was granted subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- as costs to the plaintiffs, representing the delay and circumstances attributable to the appellant. [Para 24]
9. Conditional order — Default in payment of costs:
   The order setting aside the ex parte decree and remanding the suit was expressly made conditional upon payment of Rs.50,000/- within three weeks. In default, the appeal would stand dismissed without further reference to the Court. [Para 24]
10. Remand — Expeditious disposal:
    Upon payment of costs, the parties were directed to appear before the Trial Court on 15.09.2026, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the evidence and dispose of the suit afresh, preferably within four months from 15.09.2026. [Para 24]
11. Party cooperation — Protraction of proceedings:
    Both parties were directed to assist the Trial Court in completing the trial within the stipulated period. If either party failed to cooperate or attempted to protract the proceedings, the Trial Court was authorised to take the next appropriate procedural step or impose costs according to the stage and circumstances of the case. [Para 24]

Core Ratio

An appeal lies under Section 96(2) CPC against an ex parte decree. Where the defendant had entered appearance but did not adduce evidence, and the plaintiff and his witnesses were not cross-examined, the appellate Court, in the interests of justice, may set aside the ex parte decree and afford the defendant a final opportunity to contest the suit on merits, particularly where the defendant raises substantial questions concerning prior partitions, registered documents and suppression of material facts. Such relief may be granted on terms, including payment of costs and a time-bound remand. [Paras 21–24]

Final Order

• A.S.No.254 of 2023 — Allowed on terms.
• Ex parte judgment and decree dated 05.01.2023 in O.S.No.59 of 2015 — Set aside.
• Suit remanded to the Trial Court for fresh disposal.
• Appellant directed to pay Rs.50,000/- costs within three weeks.
• On payment, parties to appear before the Trial Court on 15.09.2026.
• Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit preferably within four months from 15.09.2026.
• Failure to pay the stipulated costs within three weeks would result in the appeal standing dismissed.
• Pending miscellaneous applications closed. [Para 24]

Compassionate appointment — Right stands exhausted upon acceptance of appointment: Once a dependent of a deceased employee is offered and accepts compassionate appointment and joins the post offered, the right to compassionate appointment stands consummated. Thereafter, the dependent cannot claim appointment to a higher post merely on the ground that he/she subsequently satisfies the qualifications for that higher post. [Para 12]

 

Headnotes — Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams v. Assistant/Shroff Staff & Ors.

W.A. No.609 of 2022 — D. Ramesh & Alapati Giridhar, JJ. — 24.08.2026
2026:APHC:34623

1. Compassionate appointment — Right stands exhausted upon acceptance of appointment:
   Once a dependent of a deceased employee is offered and accepts compassionate appointment and joins the post offered, the right to compassionate appointment stands consummated. Thereafter, the dependent cannot claim appointment to a higher post merely on the ground that he/she subsequently satisfies the qualifications for that higher post. [Para 12]

2. Compassionate appointment — No second consideration for higher post:
   Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee. Once that relief has been granted and accepted, a subsequent claim for a higher post would amount to “endless compassion” and is impermissible. [Para 12]

3. Compassionate appointment — Eligibility for higher post distinct from selection/appointment:
   Mere eligibility or acquisition of the qualification prescribed for a higher post does not create a right to compassionate appointment to that post. Eligibility to be appointed is distinct from the process of selection/appointment. [Para 12, referring to State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh]

4. Compassionate appointment — Cannot be used as a ladder for career advancement:
   Compassionate appointment is an exceptional measure intended to relieve the family from financial hardship caused by the death of its earning member. It cannot subsequently be used as a mechanism for climbing to a higher post or gaining seniority merely because the employee later becomes qualified for that post. [Para 12]

5. Negative equality — Illegal benefit cannot be claimed as precedent:
   A person cannot claim a higher post merely because a similarly situated employee was wrongly granted such benefit. An illegality committed in favour of one employee cannot be validated or perpetuated by extending the same illegality to others. [Para 12]

6. Article 14 — No equality in illegality:
   A wrong or illegal order passed in favour of a similarly situated person does not confer a corresponding enforceable right upon another person on the ground of discrimination. Authorities cannot be compelled to perpetuate an earlier wrong. [Para 12]

7. Compassionate appointment — Subsequent circular cannot reopen concluded appointment:
   Where employees accepted appointment as Assistant/Shroff under the circular applicable at the time of their appointment and continued in that post for several years without challenging either their appointments or the governing circular, they could not subsequently claim the benefit of a later Board Resolution or circular providing a route to appointment as Junior Assistant. [Para 8]

8. Service law — Applicable conditions at time of appointment:
   Respondent Nos.1 to 10 had been appointed as Assistant/Shroff under the TTD Executive Officer's Circular dated 28.12.2010, which was in force when their appointments were made. Having accepted those appointments and continued without protest, they could not retrospectively invoke the subsequent Resolution No.364 dated 28.08.2018 and Circular dated 05.10.2018. [Para 8]

9. Compassionate appointment — Higher qualification acquired subsequently:
   The fact that some employees subsequently acquired graduation or other qualifications required for Junior Assistant did not, by itself, entitle them to appointment to the higher post after they had already accepted compassionate appointment to another post. [Para 12]

10. TTD Board Resolution No.364 — Cannot confer retrospective entitlement:
    Resolution No.364 dated 28.08.2018 and the consequential TTD Circular dated 05.10.2018 could not be invoked by persons who had already accepted compassionate appointments as Assistant/Shroff under the earlier regime. [Para 13]

11. Government Circular dated 12.08.2003 — Validity not adjudicated:
    The Division Bench expressly declined to examine the validity of the Government Circular Memo dated 12.08.2003 or the appointments made pursuant thereto, observing that the issue had been implemented throughout the State and the present controversy could be resolved on the narrower question concerning the subsequent claim for a higher post. [Para 11]

12. Writ appeal — Single Judge's direction for Junior Assistant appointment set aside:
    The learned Single Judge had directed appointment of the writ petitioners as Junior Assistants with consequential benefits by applying Board Resolution No.364 dated 28.08.2018 and TTD Circular dated 05.10.2018. The Division Bench set aside that order. [Paras 5 & 13]

Important governing proposition

Once compassionate appointment is accepted and the appointee joins the post offered, the right to compassionate appointment is exhausted. Subsequent acquisition of qualification for a higher post does not create a fresh right to compassionate appointment to that higher post; otherwise, it would result in “endless compassion.” [Para 12]

Negative equality — Particularly important

“An illegality committed by an authority cannot be validated and further perpetuated by its extension to other similarly placed persons.” Thus, even if another employee was granted appointment to a higher post in similar circumstances, that erroneous benefit cannot be demanded by others under Article 14. [Para 12]

Final Order

• W.A.No.609 of 2022 — Allowed.

• Order dated 26.04.2022 in W.P.No.7490 of 2019 — Set aside.

• Respondent Nos.1–10 were held not entitled to any benefits under Resolution No.364 dated 28.08.2018 and Circular dated 05.10.2018.

• The notices issued to Respondent Nos.13–64 were set aside.

• The reversion order dated 25.12.2023 concerning Respondent No.12 was set aside.

• The Division Bench expressly stated that it was not deciding the validity of Circular Memo dated 12.08.2003 or the appointments made thereunder.

• No order as to costs. [Para 13]

Vernacular resolution versus translation — Material discrepancy: Where the Telugu/vernacular version of a resolution merely indicated that a Grama Sabha was conducted, while its translation conveyed that a decision had been taken to merge the Gram Panchayat into the Municipality, the discrepancy undermined reliance upon the translated resolution. [Para 23]

 

Headnotes — Sri Thubati Purnachandra Rao & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

W.P. Nos.19692 of 2020 & 7523 of 2026 — Harinath N., J. — 25.08.2026
2026:APHC:34853

1. Merger/De-merger of Gram Panchayat — Government power subject to statutory procedure:
   The Government has power to merge or de-merge a village or area into or from a Municipality, but such power is subject to the procedure established by law and compliance with the relevant Rules governing Grama Sabha meetings. [Para 24]

2. Grama Sabha — Mandatory two clear days' notice:
   Rule 4 of the Rules relating to holding of Grama Sabha meetings requires notice of the place, date and time of the meeting to be given at least two clear days before the meeting. The prescribed modes include beat of drum in the village, affixture at three conspicuous places and affixture on the Gram Panchayat notice board. [Para 9]

3. Grama Sabha — Attendance register mandatory:
   Rule 9 requires maintenance of an attendance register containing the signature or thumb impression of every member present. Where the holding of the Grama Sabha itself is disputed, production merely of a resolution signed by the Special Officer and Panchayat Secretary, without notices and attendance records, is insufficient to establish a valid meeting. [Para 9]

4. Defective Dandora — Grama Sabha proceedings invalid:
   A Dandora issued on 11.01.2020 calling the Grama Sabha for 12.01.2020 did not satisfy the mandatory two-clear-days requirement under Rule 4 and therefore could not be treated as a valid Dandora. [Para 22]

5. Resolution — Interpolation/overwriting — Genuineness doubtful:
   The Court found that copies of the resolutions allegedly passed by the Grama Sabhas of Pasumarru and Manukonduvaripalem contained apparent interpolations when compared with the colour photocopies placed before the Court. [Para 22]

6. Vernacular resolution versus translation — Material discrepancy:
   Where the Telugu/vernacular version of a resolution merely indicated that a Grama Sabha was conducted, while its translation conveyed that a decision had been taken to merge the Gram Panchayat into the Municipality, the discrepancy undermined reliance upon the translated resolution. [Para 23]

7. Government action based on invalid Grama Sabha — Cannot be sustained:
   The Government could not act upon resolutions which were initiated at the behest of the then MLA without the Grama Sabha actually being conducted in accordance with the governing Rules. [Para 23]

8. Interim order — Suspension continued:
   The order dated 22.10.2020 suspended G.O.Ms.Nos.260 and 83. The subsequent order dated 09.03.2021, which permitted the election process to proceed subject to the outcome of the writ petition, did not vacate or unsettle that suspension. [Paras 20–21]

9. Gram Panchayat — Continued existence during suspension:
   Since the merger Government Orders continued to remain suspended, the concerned Gram Panchayats continued to exist. The Court also noted that Ganapavaram Gram Panchayat collected taxes during 2023 and 2024. [Para 21]

10. Election — Subject to writ outcome:
    The election of representatives from the erstwhile Ganapavaram Gram Panchayat wards was expressly subject to the outcome of W.P.No.19692 of 2020. However, the Court declined to retrospectively undo the completed tenure of those elected representatives. [Para 25]

11. Completed electoral tenure — Does not validate illegal merger:
    The completion of the elected members' tenure could not be treated as a precedent for upholding G.O.Ms.Nos.260 and 83. The Court expressly held that, notwithstanding the completed tenure, it could set aside the Government Orders because they had been passed in violation of the relevant Rules and laws. [Para 25]

12. Merger/de-merger — Fundamental right:
    The Government's consideration of merger or de-merger of an area into/from a Municipality cannot be challenged as a fundamental right where the prescribed Rules and regulations are followed and public interest is kept in view. Individual rights cannot override the broader public interest in the area. [Para 24]

13. De-merger — Subsequent procedure upheld:
    Once G.O.Ms.Nos.83 and 260 were set aside, the procedure adopted by the respondents for de-notification and de-merger of the three Gram Panchayats could not be faulted. The resolutions subsequently passed by the Grama Sabhas and Municipal Council were not interfered with. [Para 27]

Core Ratio

The power of the Government to merge or de-merge a village into or from a Municipality is not absolute. It must be exercised strictly in accordance with the statutory procedure and the Rules governing Grama Sabha meetings. Where the foundational Grama Sabha proceedings are vitiated by violation of mandatory notice requirements, absence of attendance records, interpolation in resolutions, or material discrepancies between vernacular resolutions and translations, the Government cannot lawfully act upon such resolutions. [Paras 22–24]

Final Order

• W.P.No.19692 of 2020 — Allowed.

• G.O.Ms.No.83 dated 28.01.2020 — Set aside.

• G.O.Ms.No.260 dated 28.01.2020 — Set aside.

• W.P.No.7523 of 2026 — Dismissed.

• The Court held that the subsequent procedure for de-notification/de-merger of the three Gram Panchayats could not be faulted.

• No order as to costs.

• Pending miscellaneous applications stood closed. [Paras 26–28]