APHC010486082026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Friday, the 18 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 26432 of 2026 Between: Yeripalli Akkamma The State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Goli Ganesh Venkata Satya Sai Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Panchayat Raj Rural Development 1 W.P.No.26432 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the 18th day of September, 2026 Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 26432 of 2026 ... Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ... Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Goli Ganesh Venkata Satya Sai Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Panchayat Raj Rural Development W.P.No.26432 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Petitioner Respondents 2 W.P.No.26432 of 2026 The Court made the following order: This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to declare the high handed action of the respondent No. 5 in dispossessing the petitioner from her property admeasuring 43.44 square yards in R.S. No. 128-5 (Grama Kantam) Kadapalem, Pudimadaka, Atchyuthapuram mandal, Anakapalli district (erstwhile Visakhapatnam) under the guise of an order for removal of encroachment on road issued in the form of a notice dated 10.09.2026 in the absence of any encroachment and without affording an opportunity of hearing despite granting building permission vide B.A. No. 2 / 2026 dated 01.06.2026 as illegal and consequently set aside the impugned notice, dated 10.09.2026. 2. The petitioner is an absolute owner of the subject property having acquired the same under a registered settlement deed vide Doc. No. 2694 of 2026, dated 24.04.2026, the S.R.O., Yelamanchili executed by her husband Y. Appanna who got the same by inheritance. Since there was an inadvertent error crept in the description of the boundary in the settlement deed, a registered rectification deed bearing Doc. No. 3862 of 2026, dated 08.06.2026 was executed. Thus, the subject property is bounded on three sides by the properties of the petitioner and her husband and on the west, by the road. The land in S.No. 128-5 is classified as grama kantam. The subject property was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s husband and his ancestors for more than four decades. Recently, an application was submitted by the petitioner for permission to construct a building of G+1 in the subject property and paid an amount of Rs. 9314/- through a challan. Accordingly, the respondent No. 5 granted a building permission, vide BR No. 2/2026. 3 W.P.No.26432 of 2026 Pursuant thereto, the petitioner is proceeding to construct the building and erected ACC roofed shed, due to shortage of funds, for the time being. As the things stood thus, the respondent No. 5 suddenly issued a notice, dated 10.09.2026 alleging that the building was constructed without a permission and by encroaching the road and directing to remove the construction on the road within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, or else the respondent No. 5 would remove the same without any further notice. This notice has not provided any opportunity of hearing before directing removal of the construction. Moreover, the notice was issued without determining the extent of the road portion occupied by the construction. The said notice is in violation of the G.O.Ms. No. 188 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts. IV) Department, dated 21.07.2011. There is a road existing towards western side of the subject property. The construction made by the petitioner is well within the limits of the boundaries of the subject property. There is no encroachment of the road portion. Hence, the impugned notice is liable to be set aside. 3. The learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayats, MPPs and ZPPs placed on record a copy of the written instructions of the respondent No. 5 vide Rc. No.10/2026, dated 15.09.2026, wherein it is mainly mentioned that the petitioner had obtained building approval for construction of a residential house in S.No. 125-8, Grama Kantam, but the petitioner is attempting to occupy and has erected an RCC shed in the land in S.No. 85/1, grama kantam and encroach upon the road margin / public utility site of grama kantam. It is further stated that the site is being used by the villagers for drying fish and other common public purposes and that the unauthorized construction is likely to obstruct common uses of the area by the villagers and 4 W.P.No.26432 of 2026 therefore, the respondent No. 5 issued a notice, dated 10.09.2026 directing the petitioner to stop further construction and submit the relevant documents within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the notices, failing which further steps would be taken as per law. It is also mentioned that respondent No. 5 has never attempted to dispossess the petitioner or demolish the construction, except issuing the notice. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel for the respondent No. 5. 5. Perused the record. 6. The impugned notice was given in vernacular language / Telugu. Its translated version reads as below: “The said site is being used by the villagers for drying fish and for other common public purposes. Therefore, the unauthorized occupation and construction of the RCC shed at the said site is likely to obstruct the common use of the area by the villagers. In view of the above, the Gram Panchayat has issued a notice, dated 10.09.2026 directing the petitioner to stop further construction and to submit the relevant ownership / title documents within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner was also informed that, in the event of failure to submit the required documents within the stipulated period, necessary action would be taken as per the applicable rules for removal of the unauthorized construction.” 7. A perusal of the notice indicates that there is no detail of the portion of the land encroached clearly mentioned. The expression 5 W.P.No.26432 of 2026 encroachment of the property is vague and ambiguous. At least it should have mentioned the survey number and the boundaries, besides the actual extent of the site by measurements on all sides. Therefore, as rightly contended by the petitioner, since the notice is not proper, the same needs to be set aside. However, it does not preclude the respondent authorities from initiating steps as per law against encroachment if any, by clearly stating the description of the property exactly encroached with reference to its boundaries, extent, survey number, any other identifying marks or particulars etc. At the same time, in the light of the serious contention mentioned by the respondent No. 5 that, taking advantage of the permission granted in another survey number, the petitioner is trying to construct structure in another survey number, the petitioner shall not proceed with further construction in the disputed portion of the property in respect of which photographs are enclosed along with the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the notice, dated 10.09.2026 while granting liberty to the respondent to take steps afresh as indicated above and also directing the petitioner not to proceed with the construction as mentioned above. It is also made clear that the determination of the measurements of the site allegedly encroached shall be taken in the presence of the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this petition shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 18.09.2026 PNV 6 W.P.No.26432 of 2026 Whether the order is : Speaking No / Reasoned Yes Reportable No / Non-Reportable Yes