APHC010566492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29424/2025 Between: 1. PANTHAGANI BABU RAO, S/O VENKATA REDDY, AGED 79 YEARS, R/04-39, TAMARAKOLLU VILLAGE, KAIKALURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 521343. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NUZVID DIVISION, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KAIKALURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE TAMARAKOLLU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY TAMARAKOLLU VILLAGE, KAIKALURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...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, particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authorities, more particularly respondent no 6, in making efforts to dispossess the petitioner from the land of an extent of 13 14 cents in Sy. No. 174/3, 174/4 of Tamarakollu Village of Kaikaluru md of EluruDist, Andhra Pradesh, without following the procedure established by the law, is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the principles of natural justice and infringes the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently set aside the impugned notice issued by the respondent no 6vide its proceedings no Rc NO 01/Encroachment/2024 dated 12.11.2024 U/s 45,52,53, 131,132,134 137,217 and 27 of Panchayat Raj Act 1994 as the notice does not contain any of the survey number and extent of the land and to pass 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 to direct the Respondents authorities not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land of an extent of 13 14 cents situatedin Sy. No. 174/3, 174/4 of Tamarakollu Village of Kaikaluru md of EluruDist, Andhra Pradeshwithout following the procedure established by the law and pass order or orders in accordance with law pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: Declaring the action of respondent authorities in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring 13½ cents in Sy.No.174/3, 174/4 of Tamarakollu Village, Kaikaluru mandal, Eluru District, without following law illegal arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Karthik Shah, learned counsel representing Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Ms.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit contended that the petitioner is in occupation of the subject land and eking out his livelihood by cultivating the same for the past several years. Now, the respondent authorities are trying to dispossess the petitionerfrom the subject land highhandedlywithout issuing any notice and without following law. He further contended that even encroachers are entitled to notice and if the said action of the respondents is allowed, it will affect the rights of the petitioners, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner has encroached the subject land highhandedly. In fact, notice was already given on 12.11.2024 and the same is pending adjudication, as such, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered as he is an encroacher that too in a burial ground and no indulgence can be shown on him, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though notice has been issued in the year 2024, the said notice does not mention any encroachment particulars except a direction to remove the fencing on the land and vacate the same within three days, however, no steps have been taken later, as such, the petitioner is under impression that the authorities have dropped their action. Howeveronce again, the authorities came recently to petitioner’s property and tried to dispossess them and if the same is allowed, it would cause irreparable loss and hardship and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is an encroacher. The documents filed by the petitioner along with affidavit show that the subject land is a burial ground. It is the contention of the petitioner that no show cause notice has been issued. It is settled law that without issuing any notice, the respondent authorities cannot interfere. The first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as Audi Alteram Partem rule. It says that every person should get a chance of being heard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should appraise the party detrementively of the case he has to meet and the time for that purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of that kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that the party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse orders passed. It is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. Hence, the said law is settled law. In the present case, No reasons are coming forward from the respondents as to what action has been taken pursuant to the issuance earlier notice dated 12.11.2024 and there is nothing to show that another notice has been issued to the petitioner after 12.11.2024 before trying to dispossess him. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by both the learned counsel, the writ petition is liable to be disposed of. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities not to interfere with the petitioners property except under due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 29th October, 2025 RKS