APHC010599422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 30878/2025 Between: M.john Babu, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P V V SATYANARAYANA 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 notice dated 03.11.2025 by the 5th respondent directing the petitioners to remove the asbestos shed in the subject property situated in Thurpu Garuvu, Penumanchili village and Gram Panchayat, Achanta Mandal, West Godavari District without following the procedure contemplated under law, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Peeta Raman learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Y.Koteswara rao, learned Standing counsel for MPP, ZPP & Gram Panchayat and Smt Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioners are in possession and enjoyment of the Government land(punta) in Sy.No.387 and adjacent to the same, the family members of the petitioners were also in possession and enjoyment of the Government land admeasuring Ac.1 ½ cents wherein they are residing by constructing residential house for nearly 70 years. He further submitted that, the 5th respondent issued impugned notice dated 03.11.2025 directing the petitioners to remove the asbestos shed in the subject property within 2 days and also sought explanation, failing which action would be taken against them. He further contended that the said impugned notice was issued without issuing any prior show cause notice seeking explanation and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. He further submitted that, the impugned proceedings though styled as notice, virtually it is a direction given to the petitioners to remove the asbestos shed in the subject land by giving 2 days time, failing which they would take steps against the petitioners. If the direction contained in the said notice 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 fairly conceded that concerned authority ought to have issued a show-cause notice before issuing the impugned notice and 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 03.11.2025. 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 petitioners seeking their explanation. 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 notice is ex-facie illegal, unsustainable and was issued in clear violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the above stated circumstances, there is no purpose in keeping this writ petition pending inviting counter. As such, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned notice dated 03.11.2025, at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned notice dated 03.11.2025. 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