APHC010612002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. KOPPANATHI MURALI KRISHNA, S/O KOPPANATHI GOVINDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O, D/NO.18 KODURU VILLAGE, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS., PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, EAST SECTION, KODURU VILLAGE MANDAL, KRISHN 4. 4. MANDAL PARISHATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KODURU VILLAGE MANDAL, KODURU DISTRICT. 5. 5. THE KODURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY IT PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, KODURU VILLAGE MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 31559/2025 KOPPANATHI MURALI KRISHNA, S/O KOPPANATHI GOVINDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O, D/NO.18-38, DINTI MERAKA, KODURU VILLAGE, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS., PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. THE TAHSILDAR, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, EAST SECTION, KODURU VILLAGE MANDAL, KRISHN MANDAL PARISHATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KODURU VILLAGE MANDAL, KODURU DISTRICT. 5. THE KODURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY IT PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, KODURU VILLAGE MANDAL, KRISHNA 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI KOPPANATHI MURALI KRISHNA, S/O KOPPANATHI GOVINDU, 38, DINTI MERAKA, KODURU VILLAGE, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS., PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH RAJ RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. THE TAHSILDAR, KODURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, EAST SECTION, KODURU VILLAGE MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. MANDAL PARISHATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KODURU VILLAGE THE KODURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY IT PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, KODURU VILLAGE MANDAL, KRISHNA 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature 2 of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the impugned action of demolition notice dt.21-10-2025 (served on the petitioner on 11-11- 2025) by the 5TH respondent as highly arbitrary, illegal and against the relevant provisions of G.O.Ms.No.118, dt.21-07-2011, and Violation of provisions of Panchayat raj Act 1994 in Violation of Article 14, 19, 21 of Constitution of india and consequentially set aside the Demolition notice dt. 21-10-2025( Served on the petitioner on 11-11-2025) in Sy.No.888 for an extent of Ac.0.01 Cents in Koduru Village Mandal, Krishna District 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 to direct the respondent No.5 not to dispossess/ Demoltion the petitioner property in Sy.No.888 for an extent of Ac.0.01 Cents in Koduru Village& Mandal, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VARDHINEEDI SAI KIRAN 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 Gram Panchayat 3 The Court made the following order: Challenging the demolition notice vide Rc.No.104/2025 dated 21.10.2025 issued (served on the petitioner on 11.11.2025) by respondent No.5-Gram Panchayat, Koduru Village, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 2. Heard Sri V.Saikiran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt D.Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Y.Koteswararao, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit, contended that the forefathers of the petitioner constructed a hut in survey No.888 admeasuring Ac.0.01 cent in the year 1965 and obtained an electricity connection thereto. After the demise of the forefathers and subsequently the petitioner’s father, the said property devolved on the petitioner by way of inheritance. Since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession of the said property without any complaint. He further submitted that on 11.11.2025, respondent No.5 along with their staff came to the subject property and tried to demolish the hut and dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. When the petitioner resisted the highhanded action of respondent No.5, the Gram Panchayat issued a demolition notice dated 21.10.2025, which was served on the petitioner on 11.11.2025, directing the petitioner to remove the encroachments. He further contended that prior to the issuance of the said demolition notice, respondent 4 No.5 said to have issued a show cause notice dated 14.10.2025 which was not served on the petitioner. It was mentioned that the said show cause notice was served on the petitioner’s mother on the ground that the petitioner was not available at that relevant time and it was also mentioned that since the petitioner has not submitted any explanation within the stipulated time mentioned in the notice, the impugned notice said to have been issued to the petitioner. He further submitted that the Gram Panchayat has not provided an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before issuing the impugned notice, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as such, the same has to be set aside at the admission stage. Hence, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for Gram Panchayat contended that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity in issuing the impugned notice. The petitioner has not raised any valid grounds warranting interference of this Court. He further submitted that a prior show cause notice was served on the petitioner’s mother, as the petitioner is not available at the relevant time. Since the petitioner did not choose to submit explanation to the said show cause notice, the Gram Panchayat issued the impugned demolition notice. Hence, no indulgence need be shown on the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 5 6. Perusal of the impugned demolition notice, dated 21.10.2025 indicates that the Gram Panchayat directed the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachments immediately, stating that the said land is required for common use by the villagers to meet future drinking water and irrigation needs. Perusal of the show cause notice dated 14.10.2025 shows that the same was issued to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit an explanation within three days of receiving the notice as to why the encroachment made by him on the canal should not be removed. The petitioner disputes the service of the said notice. Even assuming that the said notice was served on the petitioner, granting only three days’ time to submit an explanation is not sufficient. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an opportunity of personal hearing ought to have been provided to the petitioner before issuing the impugned demand notice in terms of Rule 4(1) of G.O. Ms. No. 188, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PTO.IV) Department, dated 21.07.2011, which deals with ‘Eviction of Encroachments.’ The said rule is extracted hereunder for quick reference. 4. EVICTION OF ENCROACHMENTS: (i) Where it is brought to the notice that any property of the Panchayat is under occupation of any persons the Executive authority (Panchayat Secretary) shall serve a notice to the party concerned and give a brief hearing before proceeding for eviction. 7. As per the said provision, an opportunity of being heard is required to be provided to the encroachers. As per the impugned notice, no opportunity of 6 personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner and no reasonable time was granted to him for submitting explanation. Issuance of the demolition notice with such a direction, without providing reasonable time and an opportunity of hearing, is unsustainable and it amounts to gross violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. The first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as ‘audi alteram partem’ rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. 9. In the said circumstances, the order is unsustainable and it has been passed in clear violation of audi alteram partem rule and in utter ignorance of Rule 4 (i) of G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 21.07.2011 and it has to be set aside at the admission stage. 10. Taking the submissions of both the learned counsel into consideration, since the impugned order is ex-facie illegal and unsustainable and was issued in clear violation of principles of natural justice, the same is liable to be set 7 aside even without inviting counter. Even if counter is filed, the order would be the same. As such, this Court is inclined to allow this Writ Petition at the admission stage itself. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the demolition notice dated 21.10.2025 issued by the Gram Panchayat and the matter is remanded to the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner shall submit his explanation, treating the impugned demolition notice as a show-cause notice, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such explanation, the Gram Panchayat shall afford an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner by fixing a date and time and, thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of three months. Till such time, the Gram Panchayat shall not take any coercive steps against the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 04.12.2025 MP 8 314 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO.31559 of 2025 04.12.2025 MP