APHC010147152023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 7496/2023 Between: 1. BODAPATI VEERA RAGHAVULU NAIDU, S/O. NARAYANA MURTHY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O. D NO. 2-17, BODAPATIVARI PALEM H/O. P GANNAVARAM AND MANDAL, DR B R AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DIST ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BLDGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PANCHAYAT WING, DR B R AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DIST. AMALAPURAM 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAPET DR B R AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DIST. 4. THE THASILDAR, P GANNAVARAM. P GANNAVARAM MANDAL, DR B R AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DIST. 5. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P GANNAVARAM MANDAL, DR B R AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DIST. 2 6. YADLAPALLI YESUBABU, S/O. VENKAT RAO, HINDU, AGED 51 YEARS, BODAPATIVARIPALEM, P GANNAVARAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, DR B R AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DIST. ...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 of writ of Mandamus, declaring that the action on the part of the respondent No. 5 in issuing the notice dated 21.3.2023 directing me to remove the Seedi ( pial) of 1 'A feet on the southern side of the compound wall of my property with door no. 2-66, Bodapalivaripalem, P Gannavaram Village and Mandal, Dr B R Ambedkar Konaseema Dist. within three days from the receipt of the said notice without giving any prior show cause notice in this regard as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, consequently set aside the said notice dt. 21.3.2023 issued by the respondent No. 5 in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 respondents 4 and5 not to remove the Pial situated on the southern side of the compound wall of my house with door no. 2-66, Bodapalivaripalem, P Gannavaram Village and Mandal, Dr B R Ambedkar Konaseema Dist. And to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. YALLABANDI RAMATIRTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for ZPP MPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Declaring the notice dated 21.03.2023 issued by the 5th respondent, directing the petitioner to remove the Seedi (Pial) of 1½ feet on the southern side of the compound wall of his property bearing Dr.No.2-66, Bodapalivaripalem, P.Gannavaram Village and Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Y.Ramatirtha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Smt.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the official respondents. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondent No.6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the 5th respondent, without giving any prior show cause notice inviting explanation from the petitioner, issued the impugned notice dated 21.03.2023 directing him to remove the Seedi (Pial) in the subject property within 3 days from the date of the said notice. He further submitted that the impugned notice is wholly unsustainable and contrary to well settled principles of natural justice. Though it is styled as notice, virtually a direction was given that too giving 3 days time to remove the Seedi (Pial), and if the said notice is allowed to continue and the mandate given in the said notice is allowed to happen, it 4 affects the rights of the petitioner, as such, prayed to set aside the same and pass appropriate orders. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat while justifying the notice issued by the Panchayat Secretary submitted that if at all this Court is inclined to interfere with the same, a liberty may be given to the respondent Gram Panchayat to take steps in accordance with law, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 6. The impugned notice dated 21.03.2023 does not speak anything about issuance of any prior show cause notice or an opportunity of being heard was provided to the petitioner. Issuing the impugned notice of such kind is wholly unsustainable. 7. The first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as Audi Alteram Partem rule. It says that every person should get a chance of being heard. Notice is the first willing of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party detrementively of the case he has to meet and the time for that purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of that kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that the party should be put on notice of the case before 5 any adverse orders passed. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. Hence, the said law is settled law. In the present case, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court holds that the order impugned is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. As the order is passed in sheer violation of principles of natural justice, no counter is required. As such, there is no purpose in keeping the Writ Petition pending inviting counter. Even after filing counter, the order would be the same. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned notice dated 21.03.2023 is hereby set aside. However, the respondents are not precluded to take steps in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 05th December, 2025 RKS