APHC010511702026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [0] FRIDAY, THE 25th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT WRIT PETITION NO: 27827/2026 Between: 1. PASUPULETI SWARNALATHA, , W/O. SANTOSH KUMAR, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.98-2-22/24. 2. PASUPULETI PARWATHI,, W/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.98-2-22/24/1. 3. PALNATI SRAVANI,, W/O. SRINU, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.98-2-22/19. 4. PALNATI HEMA DURGA,, W/O. RANGANATH, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.98-2-22/20. 5. GANDHAM ADI LAKSHMI,, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.98-2-22/13. 6. SEELAMSETTI LEELAVATHI,, W/O. VENKATA NARAYANA RAO, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.98-2- 22/25. 7. PALNATI DURGA BHAVANI,, W/O. APPANNA, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.98-2- 22/15. 8. GANDHAM LAKSHMIKANTHAMMA,, W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, OCC.HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.98-2- 22/16. 9. THOTA SRIDEVI,, W/O. GANESH, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.98-2-22/9. 10. AKULA SWARUPA RANI,, W/O. SAIKUMAR, OCC.HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.98-2-22/26. 2 11. PASUPULETI RAMADEVI,, W/O. PICHIYYA, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.98-2-22/26. 12. VINNAKOTI JYOTHI,, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-22/17. 13. GANDHAM RENUKA,, W/O. CHALAMAYYA, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-22/23. 14. KOTNA KALYANI,, W/O. DURGANJANEYULU, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-22/6. 15. KOTNA DHANALAKSHMI,, W/O. PRABHAKARA RAO, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-22/7. 16. MAMIDALA SUBBARAMA LAKSHMI,, W/O. HARIPRASAD, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-22/1. 17. THATTALA VENKATA LAKSHMI @ JYOTHI, W/O. SIVAKUMAR, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2- 22/8. 18. VANKENA PARVATHAMMA, , W/O. HANUMAN, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-22/5. 19. J. SAMRAJYAM,, W/O. NARASIMHA RAO, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.98-2-22/4. 20. PALNATI KRISHNA KUMARI,, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-22/28. 21. CH. LAKSHMI, , W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-22/14. 22. VATTEM SUNITHA,, W/O. SRINIVASA RAO, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-22/22. 23. GANDHAM DHANALAKSHMI,, W/O. SAMBASIVA RAO, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-22/10. 24. GANDHAM PEDDALAKSHMI,, W/O. SUBBARAO, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-22/3. 25. DASARI SIVAKUMARI,, W/O. VENKATAPPAIAH, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-22/12. 3 26. SHAIK SABIRA,, W/O. ABDUL AZAM, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RIO. D.NO.98-2-28. (ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF MUNICIPAL ROAD, ADJACENT TO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION URDU SCHOOL, MASTHAN DARGA MAIN ROAD, COLLECTOR OFFICE ROAD, GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522237 2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GUNTUR, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. GUNTUR,522003 3. THE CITY PLANNER, GUNTUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. GUNTUR,522003 ...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 toto issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in particular the 2nd and 3rd respondents in issuing notices, dt.27.06.2026 wherein threatening to demolish the petitioner's house property in Door Nos.98-2-22/24 of the 1st petitioner, 21 petitioner D.No.98-2-22/24/1, 3rd petitioner D.No.98-2-22/19, 4th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/20, 5 t11 petitioner D.No.98-2-22/21, 6th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/13, 7th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/25, 8th petitioner D.No.98-2- 22/15, 9 th petitioner D.No.98-2- 22/16, 10t11 petitioner D.No.98-2-22/9, 11th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/26, 12th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/26, 13th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/17, 14th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/23, 15th petitioner D.No.98-2- 22/6, 16th petitioner Rio. D.No.98-2-22/7, 17th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/1, 18th petitioner D.No.98-2- 22/8, 19th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/5, 20th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/4, 21st petitioner D.No.98-2-22/28, 22nd petitioner D.No.98-2- 22/14, 23rd petitioner D.No.98-2-22/22, 24th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/10, 25th petitioner D.No.98-2- 22/3, 26th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/12 and 27th petitioner D.No.98-2-28 of Municipal Road, Adjacent to Municipal Corporation Urdu School, Masthan Darga Main Road, Collector Office Road, Guntur Town, Guntur District 4 without following due process and without issuing show-cause notice by issuing a notice, dt.27.06.2026 in the form of a Final Order is illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice besides being violation of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A enshrined in the Constitution of India consequently set aside the said notices, dt.27.06.2026 and direct the respondents to follow due procedure as established in the law IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 not to demolish the petitioners respective houses in Door Nos.98-2-22/24 of the 1st petitioner, 2nd petitioner D.No.98-2-22/24/1, 3rd petitioner D.No.98-2-22/19, 4 th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/20, 5th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/21, 6 th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/13, 7th petitioner D.No.98-2- 22/25, 8th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/15, 9th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/16, 10th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/9, 11th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/26, 12th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/26, 13th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/17, 14th petitioner D.No.98-2- 22/23, 15th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/6, 16th petitioner R/o. D.No.98-2-22/7, 17th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/1, 18th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/8, 19th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/5, 20th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/4, 21st petitioner D.No.98-2- 22/28, 22nd petitioner D.No.98-2-22/14, 23rd petitioner D.No.98-2-22/22, 24th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/10, 25th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/3, 26th petitioner D.No.98-2-22/12 and 27th petitioner D.No.98-2-28 of Municipal Road, Adjacent to Municipal Corporation Urdu School, Masthan Darga Main Road, Collector Office Road, Guntur Town, Guntur District pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. N SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following: 5 WRIT PETITION NO:27827 of 2026 ORDER:- Heard Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vankayalapati Naga Praveen, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petition is against the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in issuing the impugned notice dated 27.06.2026, in the form of a final order requiring the petitioners to remove the alleged unauthorized encroachments within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the notice without the same being preceded by a show cause notice. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned proceedings came to issued. Placing reliance on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.P (PIL). No.140 of 2022 and batch, it is contended that the respondents have an obligation to issue notice before directing the petitioners to remove the encroachments. In the absence of any such notice, the impugned order is not sustainable. It is further contended that the petitioners have been living in the said locality by raising the temporary structures for the past four (4) decades. Both the Municipal and Electricity Departments have issued water service and electricity service connections, respectively. Thus, it is contended that the impugned 6 proceedings are not only in gross violation of principles of natural justice but are also contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955. Thus prays for setting aside of the impugned proceedings. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the petitioners have occupied the said land illegally and the said encroachment is causing obstruction to the free flow of drainage water. The encroachment by the petitioners on Government land became a hindrance to the development of the area and causes congestion in the smooth movement of the traffic in the area. Thus, the impugned proceedings have been rightly issued by the Corporation. 5. Considered the submissions. The impugned order reflects that the same is in the nature of a final order without providing an opportunity to show cause to the petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P (PIL). No.140 of 2022 and batch had observed that so far as the encroachments over the lands concerning the Municipalities/Forest Department/Revenue Department are concerned, even if no separate Rules have been framed prescribing the procedure to be followed in the matter of removal of encroachments over those lands, the officials of the concerned Departments, i.e., the Departments of Municipal Administration, Forest and Revenue, shall also undertake and complete the exercise of identification of unauthorized occupations/encroachments over the lands belonging to their respective Departments, within a period of two (2) months from the date of order, and 7 thereafter, take steps for removal of such encroachments by following the principles of natural justice, i.e., issuing notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the unauthorized occupants/encroachers, within a further period of four (4) months. Having regard to the same, and the principles of natural justice equally mandates that the authority is under an obligation to issue notice to the affected party before any coercive action is contemplated against them. In the light of the same, and in the light of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, the respondent Corporation should have issued a notice to the petitioner before coming to the conclusion that the subject structures are unauthorized and are in the nature of encroachment. 6. Having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 27.06.2026 and the respondent Corporation is at liberty to issue fresh notice to the petitioners and pass orders in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 25.09.2026 ANI 8 31 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO:27827 of 2026 Dated:25.09.2026 ANI