APHC010504642026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27458 OF 2026 Between: 1. Suda Swarna Kumar, S/o. Koteswara Rao, Aged about 57 years, Occ Private, Rio. H.No. 8-51/A16, Dwaraka Nagar Colony, Near Pochamma Temple, Boduppal Mandal, Rangareddy District, Telangana. 500092. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Municipality and Urban Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. - 522238 2. The District Collector, Narsaraopeta, Palnadu District, A.P. 522601. 3. The Dachepalli Nagar Panchayat, Rep. by its Commissioner, Dachepalli, Palnadu District, A.P. 522414 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gurazala, Palnadu District 522415. 5. The Tahsildhar, Dachepalli Mandal, Dachepalli, Palnadu District, A.P. 522414. 6. The Mandal Suryevor, Dachepalli Mandal, Dachepalli, Palnadu District, A.P. 522414. ...Respondents 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: BHUVANAGIRI SUBRAMANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents: GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development and Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3/Municipality. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is to the impugned proceedings dated 16-09-2026 requiring the petitioner to remove the encroachment/obstruction over the subject property of 338.8 Sq.yards of road poramboke land and restore the same in an unobstructed condition within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. 3. The petitioner contends that they have purchased the subject property from their mother by way of a registered sale deed in the year 2016. The property was originally purchased in 1997 through a Possessory Agreement of sale deed dated 06-03-1997 executed by one Thatavary Kondaiah & Venkateswara Rao by the petitioner’s father. The mother of the petitioner, leased out the subject property to one Jesus Educational Society for the purpose of running a school namely ‘Jyothi Upper Primary School’. The said school is in occupation of the subject property since 2009 which is a recognized school. On account of a complaint lodged by the respondent No.5, 3 the respondent No.3 issued a show cause notice dated 26-09-2025 to the school to submit the requisite documents of the subject property within seven days, the petitioner had submitted all the documents through e-Mail on 27-09- 2025. It is contended that the petitioner had appeared in person before the respondent No.3. Without considering the explanation and the documents that has been submitted by the petitioner, a show cause notice was issued on 05- 05-2026 requiring the petitioner to submit the documents within 3 days followed by another show cause notice dated 13-05-2026. To all these notices, the petitioner contends that he has replied and submitted all the relevant documents. However another final notice dated 16-09-2026 under Section 189 & 192 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 was issued to the petitioner as well as to the school to remove the alleged encroachment. The petitioner contends that without passing any orders on the earlier notice, the respondents have issued impugned notice requiring the petitioner to remove the encroachments forthwith, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 4. Smt. Sireesha Rani Vallabhaneni, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.3/Municipality would submit that the petitioner is in unauthorized occupation of the road poramboke. Thus the respondents have rightly issued the impugned notice. 5. Considered the submissions. The impugned proceedings refer to the petitioner's explanation dated 11-08-2026 in response to the show-cause 4 notice. However, respondent No. 3 did not refer to the contents of that explanation, nor did he refer to the earlier notice issued in that regard. 6. Be that as it may. The impugned proceedings are without considering the explanations of the petitioner. In the light of the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the respondent No.3 to pass orders afresh pursuant to the show cause notice dated 07-08-2026 by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a detailed explanation to the show cause notice dated 07-08-2026. Upon filing of such an explanation, the respondent No.3 shall issue an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass orders afresh. Till passing of such orders, no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 23-09-2026 MSI 5 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27458 OF 2026 Dated: 23-09-2026 MSI