APHC010106582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 6059/2025 Between: 1. JADDU SATYA GOPALA KRISHNA, S/O JADDU RAMA RAO, AGE ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O H.NO.2-10/A, MAIN ROAD, PERKIPALEM VILLAGE, VEERAVASARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. JADDU VENKATA SOMESWARA RAO, S/O JADDU RAMA RAO, AGE ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O H.NO. 12-12-90, ABDUL KHADAR STREET, NEAR AMMA HOTEL, ISLAM PETA, VIJAYAWADA URBAN, NTR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI PANCHAYATH RAJSECRETARY, 2. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH OFFICER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHIMAVARAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYATH OFFICER, VEERAVASARAM MANDAL AT VEERAVASARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. THE PERKIPALEM GRAM PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PERKIPALEM, VEERAVASARAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K V L NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri V. Sai Kiran, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for ZPPs, MPPs and Gram Panchayat. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed with the following relief: “……to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the order in the form of notice dated 31.01.2025, cancelling the petitioners‟ lease which is granted under lease deed vide document No.1698 of 1991, dated 13.08.1991, for 70 coconut trees, on both sides of bund of puntha bodhi in Sy.No.656 659, situated Perkipalem Village, Veeravasaram Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the notice dated 31.01.2025 and direct the respondents to continue the Petitioners‟ lease as per the lease deed, vide document No.1698 of 1991, dated 13-08-1991 and to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned „notice‟ dated 31.01.2025 (Ex.P.1). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that, vide notice dated 31.01.2025 (Ex.P.1), the Official Respondent No.4 has cancelled the lease which is granted in favour of the Writ Petitioners. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners had made two-fold submissions : a) that the lease that is granted to the Writ Petitioners is by way of registered Lease Deed dated 13.08.1991 (Ex.P.2). He would therefore 3 submit that such registered Lease Deed can only be cancelled by a Decree of Civil Court and the same cannot be cancelled unilaterally at the behest of the Official Respondents, and; b) the notice dated 31.01.2025 (Ex.P.1) which is impugned is in fact a Final Order issued under the colour of a notice. 4. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that, no prior Show Cause Notice was issued by the Official Respondents calling the Writ Petitioners to submit their explanation. In this view of the mater, the impugned notice, which is in the nature of a Final Order, is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 5. This Court has perused the notice dated 31.01.2025 (Ex.P.1) and the registered Lease Deed dated 13.08.1991 (Ex.P.2). Having considered the same, this Court is in agreement with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners insofar the violation of the Principles of Natural Justice is concerned. The said notice dated 31.01.2025 (Ex.P.1), impugned herein, is in effect a Final Order and that the Official Respondents are unable to justify the same, since no Show Cause Notice has been issued to the Writ Petitioners, thereby not giving an opportunity to submit the explanation. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned „notice‟ dated 31.01.2025 (Ex.P.1) is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the same is vitiated by non-adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 31.01.2025 (Ex.P.1) is set aside as being arbitrary and illegal. However, the Official Respondents are always at liberty to follow the due process of law, if any coercive action is sought to be initiated against the Writ Petitioners. 7.With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 4 8.Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 28.03.2025 JKS 5 47 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 6059 OF 2025 28.03.2025 JKS