APHC010044742023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2244/2023 Between: 1. GUTTULA ANJANEYULU, S/O MURTYALU AGED 45 YEARS R/O BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DIST 534 245. 2. GUTTULA NARASIMHA MURTY, S/O RAMANNA AGED 60 YEARS R/O 2144 BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DIST 534 245 3. GUNAPAATI RAMA RAO, GUNAPAATI RAMA RAO S/O SURAIAH AGED 57 YEARS R/O 299 R/O BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DIST 534 245 4. ADIDALA RANGA RAO, S/O NAVARATNAM AGED 38 YEARS R/O 297 R/O BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MAN GODAVARI DIST 534 245 5. PADAVALA ABRAHAM, S/O VENKANNA AGED 57 YEARS R/O BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DIST 534245 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2244/2023 GUTTULA ANJANEYULU, S/O MURTYALU AGED 45 YEARS R/O BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DIST 534 245. GUTTULA NARASIMHA MURTY, S/O RAMANNA AGED 60 YEARS R/O 2144 BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST 534 245 GUNAPAATI RAMA RAO, GUNAPAATI RAMA RAO S/O SURAIAH AGED 57 YEARS R/O 299 R/O BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DIST 534 245 ADIDALA RANGA RAO, S/O NAVARATNAM AGED 38 YEARS R/O 297 R/O BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MAN GODAVARI DIST 534 245 PADAVALA ABRAHAM, S/O VENKANNA AGED 57 YEARS R/O BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DIST 534245 ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. RC,J W.P.No.2244 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] TUESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI GUTTULA ANJANEYULU, S/O MURTYALU AGED 45 YEARS R/O BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST GUTTULA NARASIMHA MURTY, S/O RAMANNA AGED 60 YEARS R/O 2144 BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST GUNAPAATI RAMA RAO, GUNAPAATI RAMA RAO S/O SURAIAH AGED 57 YEARS R/O 299 R/O BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DIST 534 245 ADIDALA RANGA RAO, S/O NAVARATNAM AGED 38 YEARS R/O 297 R/O BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST PADAVALA ABRAHAM, S/O VENKANNA AGED 57 YEARS R/O BAALEPALLE VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL WEST ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. RC,J W.P.No.2244 of 2023 2 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 4TH BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, ROOM NO.135, A.P.SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PR WEST GODAVARI DIST AT ELURU 4. THE TAHASILDAR, VEERAVASARAM MANDAL W G DIST 5. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT OF BAALEPALLE VILLAGE, VEERAVASARAM MANDAL W G DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. SANDI JAYARAJU, S/O ANANDA RAO AGED 51 YEARS AGRICUTURE BALEPALLI VILLAGE VEERAVASARAM MANDAL W G DIST ...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 topleased to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent authorities in issuing Impugned Notices Dated 24/12/2022 U/S 23 of APS 86 B Act, 1923 to the petitioners to the land of extent 672 Square yards situated in the survey No. 937 of Baallepalle Village, which is contrary to the Clause 4 of G.O. MS. No. 188 Panchyath Raj and Rural Development (Ptc-IV) Department Dated 21/07/2011 is as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Fundamental Rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 21 and 300A of the Indian Constitution and consequently set-aside the impugned notices dated 24/12/2022 issued U/S 23 of APS and B Act, 1923 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 pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the petitioner's houses situated in Survey NO 937 of Ballepalli village of Veeravasaram and of West Godavari Dist in an extent 672 Square without following procedure established by the law and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): RC,J W.P.No.2244 of 2023 3 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. P SRINIVAS 4. N SRIHARI (Standing Counsel for MPP ZPP and GRAM PANCHAYAT) The Court made the following: ORDER This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent authorities in issuing notices dated 24.12.2022 under Section 23 of Andhra Pradesh Survey & Boundaries Act, 1923, being violative of Rule 4 of G.O.Ms.No.188 of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Ptc-IV) Department, dated 21.07.2011. 2. Heard Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Grampanchayat, Ms.NagaChandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 3. Sri Jada Sravan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property since more than 60 years, while so, respondent no.4 issued the impugned notices directing the petitioners to evict the subject property, without issuing any show cause notice as contemplated under Rule-4 of G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 21.07.2011. He would further contend that since the impugned notice has RC,J W.P.No.2244 of 2023 4 been issued in violation of the Government Order referred to above besides being violative of principles of natural justice, they have to be set aside. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents, would contend that the Gram Panchayat having noticed that the petitioners are continuing in illegal occupation of the subject land issued the notices asking them to submit explanation along with title documents, if any, available with them, but the petitioners instead of submitting explanation to the notice, had straight away filed the writ petition and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a liberty may be given to the petitioners to submit explanation to the impugned notice and prayed this court to direct the authorities not to take any coercive steps till orders are passed after submitting the explanation. 6. Perusal of the impugned notice shows that it is only a show cause notice asking the petitioners to submit explanation along with title documents, if any, available with them in respect of the subject property. 7. This Court granted interim order directing the authorities that they shall act strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 21.07.2011 and no RC,J W.P.No.2244 of 2023 5 steps shall be taken against the petitioner except in accordance with due process. 8. Now, as the petitioners are seeking liberty to submit explanation to the notice impugned in this writ petition, this writ petition can be disposed of. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to submit explanation to the impugned notice along with documents of title, if any, they possess within a period three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation, the authorities shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners in view of G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 21.07.2011 and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months. Till completion, the authorities shall not take any coercive steps on the subject property. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR