APHC010601282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 31052/2025 Between: 1. M SUBBARAYUDU, S/O.LATE.M.GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O.D.NO.4 PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAID DISTRICT 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHY. 3. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHY. 4 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, . ROADS A DEPARTMENT, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHY. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA REVENUE DIVISION, PENUKONDA. 6. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PENUKONDA SECTION ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, PENUKONDA. 7. 7. TAHSILDHAR, THE PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 31052/2025 M SUBBARAYUDU, S/O.LATE.M.GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE R/O.D.NO.4-22A, GUTURU VILLAGE, PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAID DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHY. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, . ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHY. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA REVENUE DIVISION, PENUKONDA. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PENUKONDA SECTION ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, PENUKONDA. 7. TAHSILDHAR, THE PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI RC,J W.P.No.31052 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI M SUBBARAYUDU, S/O.LATE.M.GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 22A, GUTURU VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL PANCHAYATI RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHY. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA REVENUE THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PENUKONDA SECTION ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, PENUKONDA. 7. TAHSILDHAR, THE PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI RC,J W.P.No.31052 of 2025 2 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GUTTUR GRAM PANCHAYAT, PENUKONDA MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI 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 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Notice/Eviction Order in R.K.No. 1/2025, dated 01.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.8, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 3. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER Questioning the Notice/Eviction order issued by respondent no.8 vide R.K.No.1/2025, dated 01.11.2025 thereby directing the petitioner to remove the structures in an extent of Ac0.15 ½ cents in Survey No.203(1E) of Guturu Village, Penukonda Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District, this writ petition has been filed. RC,J W.P.No.31052 of 2025 3 2. Heard Sri B.Abhay Siddanth Mootha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Sri Venkata Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. Sri B.Abhay Siddanth Mootha, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the impugned notice was issued directing the petitioner to remove the structures without issuing any prior show cause notice and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and there is a flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and hence the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. He would further contend that the Executive officer is not competent to issue notice for eviction since the land does not belong to Panchayat but belongs to Government being a State highway. He would further contend that the impugned notice having been issued by person incompetent to issue such notice and too in violation of principles of natural justice, the same has to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. Perusal of the impugned notice shows that the petitioner was directed to remove the structures made by her encroaching the site belongs to R&B road within seven (07) days form its receipt. RC,J W.P.No.31052 of 2025 4 5.The legal principle "no one can be condemned unheard" known as Audi Alteram Partem, asserts that before any adverse action is taken, a person must be given notice of the allegations and a reasonable opportunity to present their defense. This principle is a fundamental aspect of natural justice and a fair legal process, ensuring that decisions are made only after all relevant information has been considered. 6. Admittedly, the impugned notice does not mention issuance of any prior show cause notice and providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Further, the notice contains a mandate for demolition of structures within the time stipulated therein or else the same would be done by panchayat at the costs of the petitioner. Issuance of such a notice not preceded by any show cause notice is violative of the principles of natural justice besides being violative of Rule-4(i) of G.O.Ms.No.188, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.IV) Department, dated 21.07.2011, which mandates issuance of notice and hearing before proceedings for eviction. 7. In view of the above, as violation of principles of natural justice is glaring on the face of the notice, inviting counter or written instructions or the authorities would be of no avail for any sort of explanation offered would not be enough to justify violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, this writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself. RC,J W.P.No.31052 of 2025 5 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned notice of respondent no.8 vide R.K.No.1/2025, dated 01.11.2025. However, this order would not in any way serve as an impediment to the authorities concerned from taking necessary action in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR