IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 31566 OF 2024 Between: 1. Atti Dorabbai S/o. Challa Rao, Aged 69 years, R/o. 3-132 Sarabhavaram, Prattipadu Mandal, Kakinada District. 2. Pettrum Veera Bhadra rao, S/o. Pedda Joga rao. Aged 50 years, R/o. 2- 76, Sarabhavaram, Prattipadu Mandal, Kakinada District. 3. Paliki Parvathi, W/o. Pentayya, Aged 62 years, R/o. 3-5, Sarabhavaram, Prattipadu Mandal, Kakinada District. 4. Paliki Krishna, S/o. Pentayya, Aged 38 years, R/o. 3-51, Sarabhavaram, Prattipadu Mandal, Kakinada District 5. Paliki Atchibabu, S/o. Pentayya, Aged 36 years, R/o. 3-51, Sarabhavaram, Prattipadu Mandal, Kakinada District. 6. Dhanekula Jagannadha Rao, S/o. Subbarao, Aged 54 years, R/o. 3- 101, Sarabhavaram, Prattipadu Mandal, Kakinada District. 7. Dhanekula Nagendra Vara Prasad, S/o. Subbarao, 52 years, R/o. 3- 102, Sarabhavaram, Prattipadu Mandal, Kakinada District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Rural Development, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati. 2. District Collector, Kakinada District Kakinada. 3. Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer, Prattipadu Mandal Kakinada District. 4. Gram Panchayat, Sarabhavaram Prattipadu Mandal Kakinada District, Rep. by its Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS 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 to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the notice dt. 16-12-2024 issued by the 4^^ respondent to the petitioners and taking high handed action of interference with the possession and enjoyment of the private property of the petitioners in their respective extent of property in S.No 77/3 and 77/4 of Sarabhavaram, Prattipadu Mandal, Kakinada District without recourse to law as illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural Justice and set aside the said notice consequently directing the respondents 2 to 4 not to meddle with the said property of the petitioners in any manner without due process of law. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to direct the respondents not to meddle with the respective small extent of property of the petitioners in respect situated in S.No. 77/3 & 77/4 of Sarabhavaram, Prattipadu Mandal of kakinada District including demolition of the structures in it. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI T. V. S. PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : SRI YARRAGUNTLA KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT The Court made the following: ORDER <^4 APHC010605222024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 31566/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER(S) Atti Dorabbai and others AND ...RESPONDENT{S) The State of AP and others Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1 .T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION N0.31566 of 2024 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed questioning the notice, dated 16.12.2024 issued by the 4*^ respondent to the petitioners and taking high handed action of interference with the possession and enjoyment of the private property of the petitioners in their respective extent of properties in S.No.77/3 & 77/4 of Sarabhavaram, Prattipadu Mandal, Kakinada District without recourse to law, which is illegal, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice on the ground that the petitioners are in possession of the subject properties from the last 6 to 7 decades. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondents issued notice, dated 16.12.2024. after demolition of the part of the house properties of the petitioners, with anti date. The petitioners submitted representations, dated 27.12.2024 to that effect. Without considering the said representations, the respondent authorities are trying to demolish the other part of their houses. Hence, prayed to direct the respondents not to demolish the houses of the petitioners and not to dispossess them from the subject properties without following the due process of law as established by law. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the 4 respondent/Gram Panchayat, would submit that as per the survey conducted on 3 28.10.2024 by the respondent authorities, the petitioners have occupied the public road and hence, they are not entitled for any relief. The 4^^ respondent/Panchayat secretary has issued a notice dated 16.12.2024 inviting objections and calling for an explanation. The petitioner has got issued legal notice dated 23.12.2024 addressing the issues raised in the show cause notice dated 16.12.2024 and attempted to emphasise that they have not committed any irregularities. In the meantime, the respondents have demolished a portion of the houses. The Panchayat Secretary, instead of considering the explanation submitted to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, has acted high handedly and deliberately demolished the portion of the houses failing to take into account the petitioners explanation for the show cause notice. No order has been issued compelling the petitioners to remove the unauthorised encroachment or anything else that would suggest the Panchayat secretary has behaved unjustly. Therefore, it manifests a reasonable opportunity was denied and act of demolition is unsustainable. And the notice issued is only an empty formality. It is obviously against natural 4. justice. Principles of natural justice are those which have been laid by the Courts are being minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by the authority, which making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended 5. 4 to prevent such authority from doing injustice. Natural justice is deeply rooted in tradition and conscience to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principle of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice. It also violates the principle of fair play and natural justice as well, the opportunity of hearing is not shunned under any of the laws. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed directing the Panchayat secretary not to take any further coercive action against the subject property nonetheless considering the explanation submitted by the petitioners through their advocate in accordance with law and communicate such decision to the petitioners. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary, Panchayat Rural Development, State of AP, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Guntur District. The District Collector, Kakinada District Kakinada. The Mandal Praja Parishad Development Officer, Prattipadu Mandal Kakinada District. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Sarabhavaram Prattipadu Mandal Kakinada District. One CC to Sri T. V. S. Prabhakara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One CC to Sri Yarraguntia Koteswara Rao, SC for Gram Panchayat (OPUC) Three C.D. Copies. To, 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Cnr HIGH COURT *■ .4 / > •• “v- t { .? ;l } V r ^ i 4,1 r‘- .-•s ■; DATED;03/01/2025 SfANDH^ r. OV X 10 JAN 2025 ^ Current Section OesPATC>«gs?^ ORDER WP.No.31566 of 2024 Col DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS