1 APHC010196792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 9906/2025 Between: 1. MOTAPARTHI RAJA RAMMOHANA RAO, S/O KOTAYYA, HINDU, MALE, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/o D.NO.2-30, GUDIGUNTA VILLAGE, GANGANNAGUDEM, DENDULURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, DENDULURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. 4. SANIGUDEM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY, CUM-PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SANIGUDEM VILLAGE, DENDULURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PATHURI SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Paturi Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development appearing for the Respondent No.1 and Sri T. Sanjeeva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.4. 2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned Notice dated 04.04.2025 (Ex.P.1) and would submit that though the impugned Proceeding is styled under the nomenclature of a ‘Notice’, essentially, it is in the nature of a Final Order, directing the Petitioner to cooperate in the removal of the encroachment. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that the survey, with regard to the Peddacheruvu, was conducted behind the back of the Writ Petitioner and no advance Notice was issued to the Writ Petitioner even at the time when survey was being conducted. He would also submit that it is the statutory obligation on the part of the Mandal Surveyor and the Tahsildar to issue advance Notice to all the parties before the conduct of the survey. 3. Having considered these facts, it appears to this Court that neither the Tahsildar nor the Mandal Surveyor has issued advance Notice to the Writ Petitioner during the conduct of the survey. It is also the opinion of the Court with regard to the impugned Proceeding dated 04.04.2025 (Ex.P.1) that the said Proceeding is styled under the nomenclature of a ‘Notice’, but essentially it is a Final Proceeding, indicating that the encroachments will be cleared and such Proceeding has been issued without following the due process of law. 3 4. In the above premise, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the present Writ Petition, at the admission stage, by setting aside the impugned Notice dated 04.04.2025 (Ex.P.1), as being violative of the principles of Natural Justice. 5. Needless to state that the Official Respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh Proceedings by following the due process of law, namely by issuing advance Notice to the Writ Petitioner, consider his submissions/objections and documents, if any, before conducting the survey. It is also the opinion of the Court that only after conducting of the survey in the presence of the Writ Petitioner, and if any encroachment is noticed, the Official Respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh Proceedings in accordance with law. 6. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 21.04.2025 Vns