APHC010014712026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 948/2026 Between: 1. JALLI PARVATHI, W/O. JALLI SOMESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC. DAILY LABOUR, R/O. NEAR KULAICHERUVU, SARIPALLE VILLAGE, NARASAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. JALLI LAKSHMIKANTHAM,, W/O. JALLI NAGESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. DAILY LABOUR, R/O. NEAR KULAICHERUVU, SARIPALLE VILLAGE, NARASAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. JALLI SANTHAKUMARI,, W/O. JALLI GOGULU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. DAILY LABOUR, R/O. NEAR KULAICHERUVU, SARIPALLE VILLAGE, NARASAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. MYLABATTULA MERCY CHANDRA LEELA,, W/O. MYLABATTULA SAMPATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC. DAILY LABOUR, R/O. NEAR KULAICHERUVU, SARIPALLE VILLAGE, NARASAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522237. 2 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BHIMAVARAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, 534201. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARASAPURAM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, 534275. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NARASAPURAM MANDAL,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,534275. 5. THE SARIPALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYATH SECRETARY, SARIPALLI VILLAGE, NARASAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH,534275. 6. MYLABATTULA RAVI KUMAR, S/O SRIRAMULU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC TEACHER SCHOOL ASSISTANT, R/O 345/3 NEAR KULAICHERUVU, SARIPALLI VILLAGE, NARSAPURAM MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-534275. ...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 topleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the, high-handed acts, deeds, things of the respondents particularly the 5th respondent in issuing Notice/order vide Roc. No. 02/2025-26, dated 02.01.2026 under section 98 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and without giving opportunity of submitting explanation by following the procedure contemplated under Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, against the Provisions particularly section 98 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and also against the G.O.Ms. No. 188 Panchayat Raj And Rural Department, dated 21.07.2011 and well settled principles laid down in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Tummala Krishna Rao reported in AIR 1982 SC 1081 and violation of Articles, 14,19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India consequently set aside the proceedings Notice/order vide Roc. No. 02/2025-26, dated 02.01.2026 under section 98 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and to pass 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 Pleased to direct the 5th respondent authority not to dispossess/demolish the petitioners from their respective houses situated in SY. No. 48/3A, of Saripalli 3 Village of Narsapuram Mandal, West Godavrai District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 2 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 pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings of the 5th respondent proceedings Notice/order vide Roc. No. 02/2025-26, dated 02.01.2026 under section 98 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. DASARI S V V S V PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 4 ORDER: To declare the proceedings of the 5th respondent dated 02.01.2026 as illegal and arbitrary, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mattegunta Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat and Ms.Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the contents of the affidavit, contended that the petitioners are in possession of the subject property. While so, the 5th respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 02.01.2026 stating that the petitioners have encroached upon the cart track poramboke lands and directed them to vacate the premises within three days, failing which the authority would remove the same and recover the expenses from the petitioners. He further submitted that though the order impugned dated 02.01.2026 styled as notice, virtually a direction was given to the petitioner to remove the encroachments, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. As such, the order impugned is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the settled principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders protecting the interest of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel contended that the petitioners cannot assail the impugned notice by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and if at all this Court comes to a 5 conclusion that the order impugned is unsustainable, liberty may be given to the Gram Panchayat to take steps in accordance with law. 5. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. 6. A perusal of the impugned notice dated 02.01.2026 goes to show that the respondent Gram Panchayat has given direction to the petitioners to remove the encroachments. Though it is styled as notice, virtually a direction has been given to the petitioners to remove the encroachments without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. The first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as Audi Alteram Partem rule. It says that every person should get a chance of being heard. 7. Rule 4(i) of the G.O.Ms.No.188, dated 21.07.2011 stipulates that when it is brought to the notice that any property of the Panchayat is under occupation of any persons, the Executive Authority (Panchayat Secretary) shall serve a notice to the party concerned and give a brief hearing proceeding for eviction. 8. As referred supra, the order impugned has been passed in clear violation of Audi Alteram Partem rule and in violation of Rule 4(i) of G.O.Ms.No.188. Therefore, the said order is unsustainable both on facts and in law and is liable to be set aside even without inviting any counter-affidavit. Even after filing a counter, the result would be the same. 6 9. Despite series of directions given by this Court, the authorities are not adhering to such directions and issuing notices in such manner is unsustainable, thereby wasting Court’s time. In view of the same, the Panchayat Secretary shall pay cost of Rs.3,000/- to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee from his own pocket. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 02.01.2026. However, the respondents are not precluded to take steps in accordance with law if so advised/desire. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI Date: 08th January, 2026 JLV 7 299 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 948/2026 Date: 08th January, 2026 JLV