APHC010402902021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 24760/2021 Between: 1. JAKKA NUKARATNAM, W/O LAKSHMAIAH, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SANTOSH NAGAR, KONTAMURU VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. KAPARAPU VENKAYAMMA, W/O ARJUNA RAO, AGED 56 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SANTOSH NAGAR, KONTAMURU VILLAGE AND PANCHAYAT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, ARNARAVATI,GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARYI, KOLAMURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE SUBCOLLECTOR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST 2 GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI 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 to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing notices vide R.C.No.51/2015 dated 18.10.2021 demanding the petitioners to remove their thatched houses holding that the petitioners have encroached the internal road of a private layout for construction of their hutments and consequent action of interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners thatched houses admeasuring 18 square yards each, situated in Sy.No.349, Santosh Nagar, Kontamuru Village and Panchayat, Rajamahendravaram Rural Manal, East Godavari District as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, untenable, without jurisdiction, violation of principles of natural justice besides being violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the notices of the 3rd respondent dated 18.10.2021and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in their thatched houses admeasuring 18 square yards each, situated in Sy.No.349, Santosh Nagar, Kontamuru Village and Panchayat, Rajamahendravaram Rural Manal, East Godavari District by suspending the notices vide R.C.No.51/2015 dated 18.10.2021 issued by the Prespondent and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S.V.S.S.SIVA RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI (SC FOR ZPP MPP AND GRAM PAN) 3 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following ORDER: Aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing notice dated 18.10.2021 demanding the petitioners to remove their thatched houses and interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the houses admeasuring 18 Sq.yards in Sy.No.349 of Santosh Nagar, Kontamuru Village & Panchayat, Rajamahendravaram Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Sailesh, learned counsel representing Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue and Sri Bala Krishna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that though the impugned notice dated 18.10.2021 is styled as notice, virtually a direction has been given by the Panchayat Secretary to the petitioners to remove their thatched houses on the ground that they have encroached the internal road of a private layout for construction of their hutments. Before issuing the impugned notice, no prior show cause notice inviting explanation was given to the petitioners, as such, the impugned notice is issued in clear violation of principles of 4 natural justice and liable to be set aside. He further submitted that if the said impugned notice is allowed to subsist, it affects the rights of the petitioners, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on counter submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, no steps have been taken against the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners are showing possession certificate said to have been issued by the Tahsildar for which a letter dated 12.09.2015 has been addressed to the Tahsildar concerned to find out whether any possession certificates as claimed by the petitioners have been issued to them or not. The Tahsildar, vide his letter dated 06.11.2015 replied that no such possession certificates have been issued in favour of the petitioners and the same were not genuine. In view of the same, no indulgence can be shown on the petitioners and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. As could be culled out from the facts and submissions made by the respective parties, admittedly the impugned notice dated 18.10.2021 has been issued to the petitioners, however, there is no material to show that any prior show cause notice inviting explanation has been given to the 5 petitioners or not. The impugned notice, though styled as notice, virtually a direction has been given to the petitioner to remove the encroachments in the subject land. 7. Despite series of directions given by the Constitutional Courts, the authorities are not adhering to such directions, and thereby issuing notices in this manner. The said notice is unsustainable and contrary to the principles of Audi Alteram Partem. Even otherwise, Rule 4 of G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011 clearly envisages that an opportunity of personal hearing has to be provided to the parties. In the present case, no such opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. As such, the notice impugned is ex facie illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law and liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The impugned notice vide R.C.No.51/2025 dated 18.10.2021 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: 30th December, 2025 RKS