APHC010100862026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5566/2026 Between: 1. UNDRU APPAJI, S/O (LATE) VENKATA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, R/O.H.NO.6-7-029, FARAMPETA, YANAM, PUDUCHERRY -533464. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI 522237 AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, BESIDES ZILLAPARISHAD BUILDING, KAKINADA KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH-533001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALLAREVU MANDAL, NEAR CHERUVUGATTU, TALLAREVU, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH-533463. 4. THE SECRETARY, NEELAPALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, NEELAPALLI VILLAGE, TALLAREVU MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH-533464. 5. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TALLAREVU MANDAL, MAIN ROAD TALLAREVU, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRAPRADESH-533463. 6. DULIPUDI KALI KRISHNA, , S/O. NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O. 7-1-033, YANAM, YANAM DISTRICT, p. 2 PUDUCHERRY STATE-533464. ...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 an appropriate writ, order direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents herein especially of the Respondent No.4 in issuing Notice, dated 17.02.2026 ( Impugned Notice) for removal of alleged encroachment and threatening the petitioner for dispossession from the land an extent of AC.0.013 cents( 5.66 Square feet) land in Sy.No.161-3B of Neelapalli Village, Tallarevu Mandal of Kakinada District, (Erstwhile East Godavari District) AndhraPradesh is wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unilateral, without authority of law and high- handed discrimination and contrary to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of The AndhraPradesh Panchayat raj Act, 1994 and contrary to the law established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Government of AndhraPradesh V. Tummala Krishna Rao and violative of article 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, direct the respondents No.2-5 herein not to dispossess/evict the petitioner from the subject land without initiating appropriate civil proceedings in terms of Tummala KrishnaRao Supra and/or 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 Respondents No.2-5 herein not to dispossess the petitioner herein from the subject land without initiating appropriate civil proceedings in terms of Tummala Krishna Rao judgment, pending disposal of the main Writ petition and/or PASS Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DR.VINAKOTI SRINIVASULU AND ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV p. 3 The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Assailing the notice dated 17.02.2026, issued by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.4, the above writ petition was filed. 2. Heard Sri Vinakoti Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appeared for respondents 1 & 2; Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for respondent No.3 and Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 4 & 5. Notice of respondent No.6 is dispensed with since no adverse order is passed affecting the right and interest of respondent No.6. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no show-cause notice was issued prior to the issuance of Ex.P1 notice. He would also submit that though Ex.P1 is styled as a notice, it is in the form of an order; hence, the notice impugned violates the Principles of Natural Justice. 4. 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 a fundamental principle of natural justice. A show-cause notice pointing out violations would align with the principle of natural justice. 5. 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 p. 4 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. 6. 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. 7. 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”. 8. 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.” p. 5 1 (2014) 9 SCC 105 2 (1980) 3 SCC 1 3 (2021) 2 SCC 551 9. In the case at hand, the Ex.P1 notice does not contain particulars of the violations, enabling the noticee to submit an appropriate explanation. 10. At this juncture, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 & 5 would submit that no show-cause notice was issued before the issuance of Ex.P1 notice. He would also submit that Ex.P1 notice be treated as a show-cause notice. If the petitioner submits an explanation by annexing all the relevant documents, respondent No.4 will consider the same and pass a reasoned order. 11. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to submit an explanation to the Ex.P1 notice treating the same as a show-cause notice, by annexing all the relevant documents to the respondent No.4, within 15 days from today. Thereafter, respondent No.4 shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 shall complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible. Till such a reasoned order is passed, respondent No.4 shall not interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the property to the extent of Ac.0.013 cents in Sy.No.161-3B of Nellapalli Village, Tallarevu Mandal, Kakinada District. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 26.02.2026 TVN p. 6 149 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 5566 of 2026 Date: 26.02.2026 TVN