APHC010565502025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. KUNCHALA YEDUKONDALU REDDY, S/O. SANKARA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.4 VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-522259. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE PONNAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PONNAPALLI, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 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 or order, orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29278/2025 KUNCHALA YEDUKONDALU REDDY, S/O. SANKARA REDDY, AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.4-70, PONNAPALLI VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA 522259. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. TRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA, ANDHRA PRADESH. THE PONNAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PONNAPALLI, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, 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 or order, orders or directions more rticularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus - i.declaring the action of IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI KUNCHALA YEDUKONDALU REDDY, S/O. SANKARA REDDY, AGE 70, PONNAPALLI VILLAGE, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ANDHRA ...PETITIONER PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, TRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, BAPATLA DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BAPATLA DISTRICT, BAPATLA, THE PONNAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PONNAPALLI, CHERUKUPALLI MANDAL, BAPATLA DISTRICT, ...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 or order, orders or directions more i.declaring the action of RC,J W.p.No.29278 of 2025 2 the 5th respondent in interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioner's private property by issuing notice dt. 13-10-2025 asking the petitioner to vacate from a portion of his private property/properties within three days i.e., by 15-10-2025, failing which. department would vacate him from the so called lane (a portion of petitioners private property) under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to make use the said lane for transportation of the public as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative, opposed to the doctrine of legitimate expectation and also contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 besides violative of Arts.14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and ii.consequently, set- aside the same besides directing the respondents in general and also 5th respondent in particular not to interfere into peaceful possession and enjoyment of petitioners private property and 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 5th respondent not to take any coercive steps pursuant to his notice dt. 13-10-2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ORDER Questioning the notice dated 13.10.2025 issued by The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, directing the petitioner to vacate from portion of property within three (03) days, this writ petition has been filed. RC,J W.p.No.29278 of 2025 3 2. Heard Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit, would contend that the Panchayat Secretary issued the impugned notice asking the petitioner to vacate portion of his private property within three (03) days as if it was a market place and since such a notice cannot be issued without issuing any show cause notice and providing an opportunity of being heard, the same is liable to be set aside being violative of principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents sought further time to get instructions. 5. Perusal of the impugned notice shows that the petitioner was directed to vacate portion of the property within three (03) days form its receipt. 6.The legal principle "no one can be condemned unheard" known as Audi Alteram Partem, asserts that before any adverse action is taken, a person must be given notice of the allegations and a reasonable opportunity to present their defense. This principle is a fundamental aspect of natural RC,J W.p.No.29278 of 2025 4 justice and a fair legal process, ensuring that decisions are made only after all relevant information has been considered. 7. Admittedly, the impugned notice does not mention issuance of any prior show cause notice and providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Further, the notice contains a mandate to vacate the property within the time stipulated therein or else the same would be done by panchayat. Issuance of such a notice not preceded by any show cause notice is violative of the principles of natural justice besides being violative of Rule- 4(i) of G.O.Ms.No.188, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department, dated 21.07.2011, which mandates issuance of notice and hearing before proceeding for eviction. 8. In view of the above, as violation of principles of natural justice is glaring on the face of the notice, the same has to be set aside. 9. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned notice of respondent no.5 dated 13.10.2025 is set aside. However, this order would not in any way serve as an impediment to the authorities concerned from taking necessary action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR