APHC010659232025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34013/2025 Between: 1. DR S. SRI RAMA RAJIV KUMAR,, S/O S KUMAR RAJA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC MEDICAL OFFICER, E- UPHC VISAKHAPATNAM,R/O H. NO 6-287/1, PETROL BUNK BACK SIDE,ANNAVARAM VILLAGE, SANKHAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,) SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT (YL CIRCLE), DOWLESWARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT (YL CIRCLE), PEDDAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 4. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT 2 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, SRI SATYANARAYANA SAGAR, A. ANNAVARAM VILLAGE, SANKHAVARAM MANDAL, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT 7. THE TAHSILDAR, SANKHAVARAMMANDAL, A ANNAVARAM KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 8. THE ANNAVARAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS SECRETARY SANKAVARAM MANDAL, KAKINADA, KAKINADA 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 an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the high handed action of respondents more particularly Respondents No. 2 to 5 in proposing to demolish the subject property of the petitioner herein admeasuring of an extent of Ac. 0.08 cents of land situated at A, Annavaram Village, Sankavarama Mandal, Kakinada, in Sy NO. 74/2A1 bearing D. No. 6-287/1 with Revised Door No. 6-322, on the ground that the petitioner encroached PWD CheruvuPoromboke in survey No.74/2A1of an to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents, pursuant to the impugned notice dated 14.11.2025 v/deLetter. No. A.E.E/S SSagar Section. Annavaram/ 60 A, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21, 19 and 300 -A of the Constitution of India,and consequently set aside the impugned notice dated14.11.2025 wdeLetter. No. A.E.E/S SSagar Section. Annavaram/ 60 A, and direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of subject property of the petitioner herein of an extent of Ac. 0.08 cents of land situated at A, Annavaram Village, Sankavarama 3 Mandal, Kakinada, in Sy NO. 74/2A1 bearing D. No. 6-287/1 with Revised Door No. 6-322, and further grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 14.11.2025 v/deLetter. No. A.E.E/S SSagar Section. Annavaram/ 60 A, in the interest of justice 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 respondents not to demolish the subject property of the petitioner herein admeasuring of an extent of Ac. 0.08 cents of land situated at A, Annavaram Village, Sankavarama Mandal, Kakinada, in Sy NO. 74/2A1 bearing D. No. 6-287/1 with Revised Door No. 6- 322, in the interest of justice, IA NO: 2 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated: 14.11.2025 vide Letter. No. A.E.E/S S Nagar Section. Annavaram/ 60 A, of an extent of Ac. 0.08 cents of land situated at A, Annavaram Village, Sankavarama Mandal, Kakinada, in Sy NO. 74/2A1 bearing D. No. 6-287/1 with Revised Door No. 6- 322, in the interest of justice, Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SRI ATCHYUT Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue an appropriate order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the high handed action of respondents more particularly Respondents No. 2 to 5 in proposing to demolish the subject property of the petitioner herein admeasuring of an extent of Ac.0.08 cents of land situated at A, Annavaram Village, Sankavarama Mandal, Kakinada, in Sy NO. 74/2A1 bearingD.No. 6-287/1 with Revised Door No. 6-322, on the ground that the petitioner encroached PWD CheruvuPoromboke in survey No.74/2A1of an to an extent of Ac.0.08 cents, pursuant to the impugned notice dated 14.11.2025 videLetter. No. A.E.E/S SSagar Section. Annavaram/ 60 A, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to law and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21, 19 and 300 -A of the Constitution of India,and consequently set aside the impugned notice dated 14.11.2025 videLetter. No. A.E.E/S SSagar Section. Annavaram/ 60 A, and direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of subject property of the petitioner herein of an extent of Ac. 0.08 cents of land situated at A, Annavaram Village, Sankavarama Mandal, Kakinada, in Sy NO. 74/2A1 bearing D. No. 6-287/1 with Revised Door No. 6-322, and further grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 14.11.2025 videLetter. No. A.E.E/S SSagar Section. Annavaram/ 60 A, in the interest of justice....” 2. The petitioner is absolute owner of the property of an extent of Ac.0-08 cents in Survey No.74/2A1 at Annavaram Village, Sankavaram Mandal, Kakinada, having acquired right, 5 title, interest and possession over the same through a registered Gift Deed dated 09.03.2008 and the said property is ancestral property of the petitioner.While so, earlier, when the petitioner started construction of a house in the subject property as per the sanctioned building plan granted by the Gram Panchayat,A. Annavaram,vide BCR No.45 dated 03.02.2010, the respondent authorities prevented the said construction on the ground that the said construction was undertaken by encroaching PWD CheruvuPoramboke in an extent of Ac.0.08 cents situated at Survey No.74/5A. 3. 3. Challenging the said high-handed action of the respondents, the petitioner filed W.P.No.21480 of 2024, wherein this Court, while observing that as per the title deed the entire land to an extent of Ac.0.15 cents was a private land, even as per the survey said to have been conducted by the respondents, whereas the part of the land i.e., Ac.0.08 cents situated in Sy.No.74/5A is PWD CheruvuPoramboke, directed the respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment over the property and also restrained the respondents from interfering with the rest of the land to an extent of Ac.0.07 cents in Sy.No.74/2A1 at Annavaram Village, Sankavaram Mandal, East 6 Godavari District which is zeroyathi land as per the classification of the respondents. 4. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.21480 of 2024, the respondent authorities, without any manner of right whatsoever, issued notice in letter No.AEE/S.S. Sagar Section/Annavaram 60 A, dated 14.11.2025 to the petitioners’ father proposing to demolish the alleged encroachment. Challenging the said show cause notice, the present writ petition came to be filed. 5. Heard Sri M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, submits that in spite of orders passed in W.P.No.21408 of 2021, the 5th respondent, without any authority or jurisdiction, issued the impugned show cause notice directing the petitioner to remove the encroachment said to have been made unauthorisedly, failing which the same will be demolished. In fact, the 5th respondent has no authority or jurisdiction in issuing such impugned show cause notice, as it is for the revenue authorities to issue such notice. He further submits that the 7 impugned show cause notice does not contain any details as to the nature of unauthorized construction, the specific violation and the grounds for demolition,and therefore, the issuance of the impugned show cause notice itself is illegal, arbitrary and without any authority. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision in DIRECTIONS IN THE MATTER OF DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES, IN RE.1, to contend that no demolition should be carried out without a prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days’ time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later. 7. On perusal of the material on record and the impugned show cause notice, at the outset, it can be observed that the impugned notice, which is in the nature of eviction notice, has been issued by the 5th respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer, S.S. Sagar Section, Annavaram. In fact, the 5th respondent has no authority or jurisdiction in issuing such impugned notice. If at all he found any encroachment, he ought to have given a report to the Revenue Authority, who in turn is the competent and appropriate authority in issuing such impugned notice by following 1(2025) 5 SCC 1 8 the due procedure contemplated under the law. The issuance of such impugned notice without following the due process as prescribed by law itself is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Further, the impugned notice, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, did not contain any details as to the nature of the unauthorized construction; the details of the specific violation and the ground of demolition. In DIRECTIONS IN THE MATTER OF DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES, IN RE, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that no demolition should be carried out without a prior show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15 days’ time from the date of service of such notice, whichever is later,the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: “94.5. The notice shall contain the details regarding: (a) The nature of the unauthorized construction. (b) The details of the specific violation and the grounds of demolition. (c) A list of documents that the noticee is required to furnish along with his reply. (d) The notice should also specify the date on which the personal hearing is fixed and the designated authority before whom the hearing will take place.” 9 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the fact the issuance of impugned notice by the 5th respondent itself is without authority or jurisdiction, contrary to the settled principles of law, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and not sustainable in law and thus, the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the notice in Letter No.AEE/S.S. Sagar Section/Annavaram 60A, dated 14.11.2025 issued by the 5th respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer, S.S. Sagar Section, Annavaram is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________ V. SUJATHA, J 8th December, 2025 LSP 10 328 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 34013 of 2025 8th December, 2025 LSP