APHC010110822023 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: 5581/2023 Between: 1. RAJAVARAPU ANJALI, W/O R. PRASAD, AGE, 29 YEARS, OCC, STREET VENDOR, 2. TADEPALLI LAXMIKANTHAM, W/O T. NARSIMHAM, AGE, 37 YEARS, OCC, STREET VENDOR, 3. CHAKRALA VIJAYAMMA, W/O CH. VENKATRAO, AGE, 49 YEARS, OCC, STREET VENDOR, 4. KANAPARTHL. ANKAMMA, W/O K. BRAHMAIAH, AGE, 47 YEARS, OCC, STREET VENDOR, 5. GONU NARSIMHA RAO, S/O VENKATESHWARLU, AGE, 62 YEARS, OCC, STREET VENDOR, 6. TOTTEMPUDI VENKATESHWARLU, S/O T,P.VENKATESHWARLU, AGE, 50 YEARS, OCC, STREET VENDOR, 7. IJJAGIRI SUBBARAO, S/O I. TIRUPATHAIAH, AGE, 42 YEARS. OCC, STREET VENDOR, 8. CHAPALLI ROMANAMMA, W/O CH. VENKATESHWARLU, AGE, 45 YEARS, OCC, STREET VENDOR, 9. YANAMADDINA BHOODEVI, W/O LATE Y. KONDAIAH, AGE, 63 YEARS, OCC, STREET VENDOR, 10. BOJJA CHIRANJEEVI, S/O ESHWARAIAH, AGE, 29 YEARS, OCC, STREET VENDOR, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF KONDEPI VILLAGE, AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KONDEPI, KONDEPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE PANCHAYATHI SECRETARY, KONDEPI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of respondents 2 to 4 in not taking any action in pursuance to the representation submitted by us on 27-02-2023, not to evict the petitioners in Gramkantam land at Kondepi village and Mandal, Prakasam District, without following due process of law, even though the said lands belong to government were doing small businesses past 10 years, as being illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14, 21 and 300 of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representation dated on 27-02-2023, and 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 No 2 to 4 not to evict the petitioners from the Gramakantam land near RTC Bastand at Kondepi village and Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M CHALAPATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORDER: Declaring the action of the respondents in not taking action on the representation submitted by the petitioners on 27.02.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri M.Chalapathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, Smt.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri V.Satya Narayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that when the respondents tried to dispossess the petitioners from their respective shops in Gramakantam land at Kondepi Village and Mandal, Prakasam District, without following due process of law and without issuing any notice, petitioners made a representation dated 27.02.2023 to respondent Nos.2 to 4, not to evict them. Despite the same, as the respondent authorities tried to dispossess them, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. He further submitted that this Court, on 07.03.2023, granted interim order directing the respondents not to take any coercive action in respect of the shops of the petitioners. He further submitted that in the counter it was stated that the petitioners are encroachers of the road margin. It is well settled that even encroachers are entitled to notice, as such, if the said action of the respondents is allowed to materialize, it not only affects the rights of the petitioners but also deprive the petitioners livelihood, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat on counter submitted that the petitioners are encroachers on the road margin and they have no vested right to sit on the road margin causing inconvenience to be public, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 6. The respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners from their respective shops without issuing any notice or following law is the grievance of the petitioners. A perusal of the counter would go to show that the petitioners are encroachers on the road margin. However, it was not mentioned that the authorities would follow due process before removing the encroachments. The first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as Audi Alteram Partem rule. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials, firstly; a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard, secondly; the concerned authority should follow fair and transparent procedure and lastly; the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matters by reasoned order or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by Courts in India and abroad. In the present case, no notice has been issued to the petitioners before trying to dispossess which is clear violation of principles of natural justice, as such, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by passing the following order: “The respondents are directed not to interfere with the shops of the petitioners except under due process of law.” 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 05th November, 2025 RKS