APHC010233902025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 11595/2025 Between: Mallidi Trimurthulu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following order: The short grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 11.04.2025 directing the petitioner to remove the car shed within seven(07) days, without following the procedure contemplated under law. 2. Heard Sri G.Sai Kumar, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner had erected a car parking shed in front of his house at R.S.No.49/1 of Kathavapadu village, Kathavapadu Gram Panchayat, Iragavaram Mandal, West Godavari district. He further submitted that, the 3rd respondent issued impugned notice dated 11.04.2025 and thereby directed the petitioner to remove the car shed within seven(07) days stating that the subject land is classified as “ Cheruvu Poramboke”, that too without issuing prior show cause notices seeking explanation and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He further submitted that, the impugned proceedings though styled as notice, virtually it is a direction given to the petitioner to vacate the subject land by giving seven days time, failing which they would take steps against the petitioner. If the direction contained in the said notice is allowed to materialize, the rights of the petitioner will be affected. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat contended that the petitioner is an encroacher who constructed the car parking shed by encroaching the Cheruvu Poramboke land, as such no indulgence need be shown on the petitioner and in case, if this Court inclines to interfere with the said impugned notice, liberty may be given to the concerned authority to take steps in accordance with law. 5. Perused the impugned notice dated 11.04.2025. 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 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 petitioner, 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 11.04.2025, at the admission stage itself. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned notice dated 11.04.2025. 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