APHC010053332026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3121/2026 Between: 1. KOTAMSETTY RAJENDRA KUMAR, S/O KOTAMSETTY PENTARAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O 14-89, KONERUPRTA, MORAMPUDI ROAD, PIDIMGOYYI VILLAGE, RAJAHMUNDIY RURAL MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-533 107. 2. KOTAMSETTY GAYATHRI, D/O KOTAMSETTY RAJENDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O 14-89, KONERUPRTA, MORAMPUDI ROAD, PIDIMGOYYI, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRIET, ANDHRA PRADESH-533 107. 2. 3. 3. KOTAMSETTY SRIDEVI,, D/O KOTAMSETTY RAJENDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, R/O 14-89, KONERUPRTA, MORAMPUDI ROAD, PIDIMGOYYI, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRIET, ANDHRA PRADESH-533 107. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATI RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, A.P SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238. 1. 2. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533001. DOWLAISWARAM VILLAGE, 3. Page 2 of 7 3. THE DISTRIET PANCHAYATI OFFICER, DOWLAISWARAM VILLAGE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -533 222. 4. 5. THE HUKUMPETA GRAMA PANEHAYATI, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM RURAL MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRIET, ANDHRA PRADESH-533 222. ...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 to issue a Writ Order of direction, particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the highhanded the action of Respondent No. 05 in issuing a demolition notice to the petitioners dated 28.01.2026, proposing demolition of the G-i-3 residential R.C.C. building situated in Plot Nos. 108 and 109, in a layout approved under L.P. No. 51/84, Survey No. 60, at Pidimgoyyi Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, without giving any notice as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and in violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14,21 and 300A of constitution of India and consequently to set aside the orders of the respondent No.05 dated 28.01.2026 and direct the respondent no. 05 not to demolish the building of the petitioner, without following due process of law 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 to direct the respondent No. 05 not to demolish the petitioners property in the G- i-3 residential R.C.C. building situated in Plot Nos. 108 and 109, in a layout approved under L.P. No. 51/84, Survey No. 60, at Pidimgoyyi Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District by suspending the notice dated 28.01.2026 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAJANI NELAKUDITI Counsel for the Respondent(S): p. 3 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Assailing the notice issued by the Panchayat Secretary – respondent No.5 vide Roc.Nil/2025, dated 28.01.2026 (Ex.P1), directing the 1st petitioner to remove the encroachment portion within seven days, the above writ petition was filed. 2. Heard Ms. Rajani Nelakuditi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appeared for respondents 1 & 3; Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for respondents 2 & 4 and Sri P. Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of Plot Nos.108 & 109 in L.P.No.51/84, Sy.No.60 situated at Pidimgoyyi Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioners acquired the aforementioned plots by way of registered will vide document No.109 of 2020, dated 10.11.2020. The 1st petitioner obtained permission from respondent No.5 in 1993 for the construction of G+3 residential R.C.C. building. Thereafter, the building was constructed. The said building was assessed for property tax. The local authority also assigned door numbers. 4. While the things stood thus, the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent issued the notice Ex P.1, impugned in the writ petition, without disclosing particulars of the alleged encroachment made by the petitioners, and the date on which the survey was conducted and further directed to remove the encroachment. Learned counsel would also submit that the notice impugned violates the Principles of Natural Justice. Page 4 of 7 5. Sri P. Chaitanya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, on written instructions, would submit that a survey was conducted by the Mandal Surveyor, wherein it was found that the petitioners encroached upon approximately 200 square yards of the Government site and made constructions. Since the construction was made by encroaching upon Government land, the impugned notice vide Ex.P1 was issued. 6. When the court pointed out the omission of the survey date and the dimensions of the alleged encroachment, learned counsel reiterated the contents of the notice. 7. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the petitioners’ title; construction of the structure and the local authority assigning the door number and building assessed to property tax. 8. A perusal of the impugned notice (Ex.P1), it indicates neither the date on which the survey was conducted nor details of the extent of the alleged encroachment made by the petitioners. Without indicating the extent of encroachment or the conduct of the alleged survey, directing the 1st petitioner to remove the encroachment, in the considered opinion of this Court, amounts to a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. In fact, the notice must contain all the particulars enabling the noticee to submit a proper explanation. The notice impugned, in the considered opinion of this court, is not a notice; it is in the form of an order directing the petitioners to remove the alleged encroachment. 9. Adi Alteram Partem, hear the other side, and no person can be condemned without a fair and unbiased opportunity, a foundational requirement of the rule of law in a civilised society, is a core principle of natural justice. Of late, this court noticed that the executive authorities dispensed with issuing show-cause notices and are issuing orders in the form of notices. A show-cause notice pointing out violations would align with the principle of natural justice. Page 5 of 7 10. A show cause notice has the solemn purpose of informing the person about the material for which a response is being sought concerning a case, which may constitute a breach, for which he is being directed to submit an explanation. The very purpose of a show-cause notice is to enable the recipient to raise objections, if any, to the proposals made, and the concerned authority is required to address such objections, which is the fundamental principle of natural justice. 11. Another purpose behind serving a show cause notice is to make the noticee understand the exact case set up against the individual, which one has to meet in its reply, and the proposed action, which is intended to be taken against the individual, if the reply is unsatisfactory. The purpose of a show cause notice is to enable the noticee to meet the grounds on which the action is proposed against him. Both conditions must be fulfilled and must be reflected in the notice itself. If the notice is vague and incomplete, it violates the principles of natural justice. 12. The Apex Court in Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi)1, held that to fulfil the requirement of principles of natural justice, a show cause notice should meet the following two requirements viz., (i) the material/grounds to be stated which, according to the department, necessitate an action; and (ii) the particular penalty/action which is proposed to be taken. 13. In Nasir Ahmad vs. Assistant Custodian General, Evacuee Property, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Ors2., the Apex Court held thus: “It is essential for the notice to specify the particular grounds on the basis of which an action is proposed to be taken so as to enable the noticee to answer the case against him. If these conditions are not satisfied, the person cannot be said to have been granted any reasonable opportunity of being heard”. 1 (2014) 9 SCC 105 p. 6 14. In UMC Technologies Private Limited vs. Food Corporation of India and Ors.3 , the Apex Court held thus: “At the outset, it must be noted that it is the first principle of civilised jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose right or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The basic principle of natural justice is that before adjudication starts, the authority concerned should give to the affected party a notice of the case against him so that he can defend himself. Such notice should be adequate and the grounds necessitating action and the penalty/action proposed should be mentioned specifically and unambiguously. An order traveling beyond the bounds of notice is impermissible and without jurisdiction to that extent.” 2 (1980) 3 SCC 1 15. In view of the discussion supra vis-a-vis, show cause notice, the authority should have issued a show-cause notice before issuing Ex P.1 notice, enabling the petitioners to submit a proper explanation. However, as pointed out supra, no show-cause notice was issued in the case at hand except for an order in the form of the notice. Hence, the impugned notice (Ex.P1) is liable to be set aside. 16. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed. The notice impugned Ex P.1 issued by the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent vide Roc.Nil/2025, dated 28.01.2026, stands set aside. However, this order will not preclude the authority from issuing a fresh show notice and acting strictly as per law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 04.02.2026 TVN p. 7 3 (2021) 2 SCC 551 181 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.3121 OF 2026 Date: 04.02.2026 TVN