APHC010063012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NOs: 3269 and 5492 of 2025 W.P.No.3269 OF 2025 Between: 1. DUNNA RAVI SANKAR, S/O VENKATA REDDY, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O 1-41, PANCHAYATHI STREET, GOVALANKA, TALLAREVU MANDA, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2. KOTNALA SATISH KUMAR, S/O MANIKYALA RAO, AGED 38 YEARS, OCCU COOLY, R/O 1-51/B, GOVALANKA, TALLAREVU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 3. KOTNALA MADHU, S/O. KOTNALA DEVANANDAM, AGED 40 YEARS, OCCU PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O 1-149/B GOVALANKA, TALLAREVU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT-533464. 4. KOTNALA DEVANANDAM, S/O. LATE VENKANNA, AGED 82 YEARS, OCCU COOLY, R/O 1-149/B GOVALANKA, TALLAREVU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT-533464. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYATI RAJ SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT AP. 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI, AP. 2 3. THE GOVALANKA GRAM PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, GOVALANKA, TALLAREVU MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, AP. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. YARRAGUNTLA.KOTESWARA RAO,STANDING COUNSEL FOR ZILLA PRAJA PARISHADS,MANDAL PRAJA PARISHADS 3. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV W.P.No.5492 OF 2025 Between: 1. KORUKONDA SIMHADRAMMA, W/O.K.SURIBABU, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC SARPANCH, H.NO.1-235 R/O.CHINNA GOVALANKA VILLAGE, THALLAREVU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. PIN 533464. 2. POLNATI JAYARAMARAO, S/O. LATE RAMANNA AGED 68 YEARS OCC COOLY, H.NO. 1-52, R/O.CHINNA GOVALANKA VILLAGE, THALLAREVU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT.PIN 533464. 3. MORTHA SIMHADRI, S/O. RAMUDU, AGED 40 YEARS OCC BUSINESS, R/O. CHINNA GOVALANKA VILLAGE, THALLAREVU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT., PIN 533464. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH RAJ, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PANCHAYATHRAJ DEPARTMENT, TADEPALLY, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 3 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA. 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, KAKINADA DISTRICT, A.P. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, TALLAREVU MANDAL KAKINADA DISTRICT, A.P. 6. THE CHINAGOVALANKA GRAMPANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS PANCHAYATH SECRETARY CHINAGOVALANKA VILLAGE, TALLAREVU MANDAL KAKINADA DISTRICT. 7. KOTNALA SUDHEER, S/O.RAMASVVAMY AGED 50 YEARS OCC GOVT JOB IRRIGATION DEPT R/O.GOVALANKA VILLAGE, THALLAREVU MANDAL KAKINADA DISTRICT. 8. KOTNALA SRIRAMACHANDRA MURTHI, S/O. RAMASWAMY, AGED 55 YEARS OCC DUBAI, R/O.GOVALANKA VILLAGE, THALLAREVU KAKINADA DISTRICT. 9. KOTNALA DEVANANDAM, S/O.VENKANNA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/O.GOVALANKA VILLAGE THALLAREVU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 10. DUNNA RAVISHANKAR, S/O.VENKAT REDDY AGED D5 YEARS OCC AGRL. LABOR R/O.GOVALANKA VILLAGE, THALLAREVU MANDAL KAKINADA DISTRICT. 11. KOTNALA SATHISH KUMAR, S/O. AGED 42 YEARS OCC LABOUR R/O.GOVALANKA VILLAGE, THALLAREVU MANDAL KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K GANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. Y KOTESWARA RAO The Court made the following: 4 COMMON ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P. Prem, learned Counsel representing Sri K. Gani Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.3269 of 2025 and Sri M. Srinivas Rao, appearing on behalf of Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.5492 of 2025; Sri Panku Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat. 2. Having regard to the identical nature of facts in both the Writ Petitions, with the consent of all the parties, both the Writ Petitions are taken up together for consideration. 3. The facts arising from W.P.No.3269 of 2025 are that the grandfather of the Writ Petitioners in the said Writ Petition has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land for the past five decades, covering an extent of Ac. 3.00 cents in Sy.No.56, and that they were also given a Possession Certificate vide Proceedings No.1558 of 2004, dated 18.10.2004, by the Tahsildar. Thereafter, the Petitioners succeeded to the property from their grandfather. 4. It is further submitted by the Writ Petitioners that Respondent No.2 issued a Notice on 04.11.2024, directing the Petitioners to remove the structure in Sy.No.52/4 since the said land belongs to the Gram Panchayat. 5. Having been aggrieved by the Notice dated 04.11.2024, the Writ Petitioners herein have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25847 of 2024. Vide Order dated 08.11.2024 (Ex.P.7), learned Single Judge of this Court has disposed of the said Writ Petition (W.P.No.25847 of 2024) by granting permission to the Writ Petitioners to submit an Explanation to the Notice dated 04.11.2024. 5 6. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that, in pursuance of the said Order, the Writ Petitioners have submitted an explanation on 12.12.2024 (Ex.P.4). It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that, without considering the said Explanation dated 12.12.2024 (Ex.P.4), the Official Respondent No.2 has issued the Impugned Notice, dated 04.02.2025 (Ex.P.1). 7. It is noticed by this Court that the Impugned Notice (Ex.P.1) does not indicate that the Explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioners on 12.12.2024 has at all been considered. For non-consideration of the Explanation before issuing the Notice dated 04.02.2025, in the opinion of this Court, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice that goes to the very root of the matter. 8. Having formed this opinion, this Court is also of the opinion that the Impugned Notice is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the Impugned Notice dated 04.02.2025 (Ex.P.1) is set aside because the Explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioners on 12.12.2024 has not been considered.. 9. The Respondent No.2 is given the liberty to pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law after considering the Explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioners, dated 12.12.2024, objectively. In any case, this Respondent No.2 shall pass fresh Orders after duly considering the Explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioners, dated 12.12.2024. 10. The Villagers of Chinnagovalanka Village have filed the Writ Petition in W.P.No.5492 of 2025 seeking eviction of the encroachers including the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.3269 of 2025, in accordance with law. 11. Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned Counsel appearing for the Panchayat Secretary of Chinagovalanka Gram Panchayat (Respondent No.6) would submit that the eviction of encroachers could not be done in view of the subsistence of the Interim Order passed by this Court dated 06.02.2025 in W.P.No.3269 of 2025. 6 12. In view of the directions given by this Court in W.P.No.3269 of 2025, no further consideration in Writ Petition No.5492 of 2025 is necessary. However, there shall be a direction to the Panchayat Secretary of Chinagovalanka Gram Panchayat (Respondent No.6 in W.P.No.5492 of 2025) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the Writ Petitioners also before passing fresh Orders, as indicated above. 13. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petitions in W.P.No.3269 of 2025 stands allowed to the extent indicated, and W.P.No.5492 of 2025 is disposed of in terms of the directions given hereinabove. No order as to costs. 14. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 06.03.2025 DSV