APHC010142272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 7231/2025 Between: 1. MEDURI CHANDRASEKHAR, S/0 RAMANJANEYULU, AGED 43 YEARS, R/0 14-3, KODURU VILLAGE, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH- 521328 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, PANCHYATH RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OF KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KODURU, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, OF KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE KODURU GRAM PANCHYATHY, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT AT MACHILIPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the 5th respondent in making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from his land of extent Ac. 0.91 cents situated atSurvey No. 469/2and extent of Ac. 0.06 cents in survey No. 469/3 of Koduru Village, Koduru Mandal, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradeshwithout following procedure established by the law as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and the act of authorities is against the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of RAME GOWDA V/S M VARAOAPPA NAIDU Citation 2003 LawSuit(SC) 1248 and consequential set aside the Impugned Notices Dated 22/01/2025as the said notices issued without adhering the procedure contemplated under GO MS. No 188 dated 21.07.2011 and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere over the possession of the petitioner's land of extent Ac. 0.91 cents situated atSurvey No. 469/2and extent of Ac. 0.06 cents in survey No. 469/3 of Koduru Village, Koduru Mandal, Krishna District at Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh, except due process of law contemplated under GO MS NO 188 dated 21.07.2011 and pass order or orders in accordance with law pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NALLANAGULA LALITHA SREE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Smt. Nallanagula Lalitha Sree, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri T.Sanjeev Rao, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, Sri V.Sai Kiran, learned Counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP, MPP & GPP, Sri Panku Rajesh Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. 2. Sri V.Sai Kiran, learned Counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for ZPP, MPP & GPP has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Panchayat Secretary, Kodur Mandal, Krishna District, dated 20.03.2025. The copy of the Written Instructions is supplied to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Impugned Notice dated 22.11.2025 (Ex.P1). She would submit that although the Impugned Proceedings is couched in the nomenclature as “Notice”, in effect, it is not a Show-cause Notice; but, it is a Final Order directing the Writ Petitioner to remove the Tin-Shed on the allegation that the Writ Petitioner has erected the Tin-Shed illegally. 4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that there was no prior Show-cause Notice indicating the alleged violation and the proposed action which is sought to be taken for such violation and no Explanation was called for from the Writ Petitioner on that basis. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that the Impugned Proceedings which is in the nature of a “Notice” is therefore, bad in law. 5. This Court has perused the Impugned Proceedings, which is couched in the nomenclature as being a “Notice”. Having considered the contents of the Impugned Proceedings, this Court is in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the said proceedings is essentially in the nature of a Final Order passed by the Authority without issuing any Show-cause Notice prior to the proposed action and without calling for any Explanation. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Impugned Proceeding (Notice dated 22.11.2025) is bad in law and therefore, the Notice dated 22.11.2025, issued by the Panchayat Secretary (Ex.P1) is set-aside. However, liberty is granted to the Respondents to initiate fresh proceedings by following the due process of law, if so advised. 7. In the above premise, the Writ Petition Stands allowed to the extent indicated. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this Order. __________________________ G.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 07.04.2025 SRT 58 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD W.P.No.7231 of 2025 Date: 07.04.2025 SRT