APHC010634582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 32764/2025 Between: Medisetti Lovalakshmi ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VINOD KUMAR PEMMASANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following order: Aggrieved by the issuance of impugned eviction notice dated 17.11.2025 by the 4th respondent directing the petitioner to remove the encroachments within one week, without following the procedure contemplated under law, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Pemmasani, 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. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner purchased the land to an extent of 60 Sq.Yards and 73 Sq.yards in Sy.No.64 situated in Narasingapuram GramPanchayat, Pitapuram Mandal, Kakinada District through registered sale deed and ever since she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by constructing a small kiosk(dabba or bunk). He further submitted that, when the respondent authorities have issued eviction notice dated 16.09.2025 directing the petitioner to remove her shop from the said premises within 3 days alleging that the subject land is Government land, the petitioner had filed W.P.No.25914 of 2025 wherein this Court has disposed of the said writ petition on 19.09.2025, by treating the impugned eviction notice therein dated 16.09.2025 as show cause notice and further directed the petitioner is directed to submit detailed explanation along with required documents, if any, for substantiating her right over the subject property within a period of three(03) weeks. Further, the respondent authorities are directed to consider and pass orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and other stake holders, if any, in accordance with law within four weeks thereafter. (b) Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that pursuant to the orders of this court dated 19.09.2025, the petitioner had submitted her explanation on 22.10.2025 and the 4th respondent, after conducting survey, issued the present impugned notice dated 17.11.2025 stating that the petitioner had encroached the Government land and directed her to remove the encroachments within one week, failing which, the authorities would take action in accordance with law. He further submitted that, the impugned proceedings though styled as notice, virtually it is a direction given to the petitioner to remove the encroachments. (c) He further contended that, inspite of the direction given to the respondents by this Court in W.P.No.25914 of 2025, to consider and pass orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and other stake holders, if any, in accordance with law, the authorities have not passed any orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 22.10.2025. Therefore, the order impugned is wholly unsustainable and was issued in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat submitted that authorities would definitely pass orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner, however, the petitioner cannot question the said notice under Article 226. Accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 6. Inspite of the direction given by this Court in W.P.No.25914 of 2025, the authorities have not passed any orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 22.10.2025 while issuing the impugned notice/proceedings dated 17.11.2025. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned notice does not speak anything about explanation submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned notice is ex-facie illegal, unsustainable and was issued in clear violation of principles of natural justice. It is very surprising to see as to how the authorities have issued the impugned notice without adhering to the directions of this court because of which the petitioner has to once again knock the doors of this Court by filing the present writ petition. In view of the same, this court is inclined to impose costs on the concerned Panchayat Secretary. 7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned notice dated 17.11.2025 and dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: i. The impugned notice/proceedings dated 17.11.2025 are hereby set aside. ii. The respondent authorities shall pass orders on the explanation of the petitioner dated 22.10.2025 as directed by this Court in W.P.No.25914 of 2025. iii. Till such exercise, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. iv. The Panchayat Secretary concerned shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner within four(04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. v. If the Panchayat Secretary concerned fails to pay the said amount, the State shall pay the same and recover from the Panchayat Secretary concerned. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS