APHC010702922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 36086/2025 Between: Enugu Janaki and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MADHAVA RAO NALLURI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the issuance of impugned common notice dated 16.12.2025 by the 6th respondent directing the petitioners to remove their houses constructed in road margin and canal poramboku situated in Kollaparru village, Akividu mandal, West Godavari District within fifteen(15) days, without following the procedure contemplated under law, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Madhava Rao Nalluri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for MPP, ZPP & Gram Panchayat and Ms Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the respondents have assigned the subject sites to the petitioners and also issued house site pattas and eversince they have been living in the subject sites by constructing houses and and also obtained electricity connections. He further submitted that, without issuing any prior show cause notice seeking explanation and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, the 6th respondent issued impugned common notice dated 16.12.2025. He further submitted that, the impugned proceedings though styled as notice, virtually it is a direction given to the petitioner to remove their houses within fifteen(15) days, failing which they would take steps against them. If such a direction is allowed to materialize, the rights of the petitioners will be affected. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat submitted that as the petitioners have constructed houses on the road margin and canal poramboke, the respondent authority has rightly issued impugned common notice to the petitioners and further submitted that in case, if this Court inclines to interfere with the said impugned notice/proceedings, liberty may be given to the concerned authority to take steps in accordance with law. 5. Perused the impugned notice/proceedings dated 16.12.2025. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned notice does not speak anything about prior issuance of any show-cause notice to the petitioner seeking their explanation. Having admitted that the petitioners are encroachers, they have not given a prior notice seeking explanation. 6. It is well settled that, even an encroacher is entitled for a reasonable notice. 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. Therefore, in view of the above, issuing the impugned notice with such a direction, without issuing any prior show-cause notice and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, is un-sustainable under law. As such, the impugned common notice is ex-facie illegal, unsustainable and was issued in clear violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the above stated circumstances, instead of keeping this writ petition pending this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned common notice dated 16.12.2025. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned common notice dated 16.12.2025. However, this order does not preclude the concerned authority to take steps in accordance with law, by issuing proper show-cause notice inviting explanation and providing an opportunity of personal hearing and to pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the concerned parties. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS