APHC010142592026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7736/2026 Between: 1. MUDILI RANI, W/O MUDILI SRINU, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, GOKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE 533 286. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PIN CODE 522 238. 2. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT, OFFICER, GOKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE 533 285. 3. THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, GOKAVARAM MANDAL REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PIN CODE 533 286. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GOKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE 533 285. 5. MUNI VENKATA RAO, NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, GOKAVARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PIN CODE 533 285 ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 2 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 order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the notice in Rc.No.29/2025, dt 20.02.2026 issued by the respondent asking the petitioner to remove the residential house situated in Sy.No.282 in an extent of 65.34 Sq. Yards situated at Kothapalli Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District as wholly illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure as laid down in G.O.Ms.No.188, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department dt 22.07.2011 and consequently set aside the impugned notice dt 20.02.2026 issued by the 3rd respondent by declaring the and arbitrary, in the interest of justice and 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 may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including dispossession in pursuance of the notice dt: 20.02.2026 issued by the 3'^'^ respondent to the petitioner in respect of her residential house situated in in Sy.No.282 in an extent of 65.34 Sq. Yards situated at Kothapalli Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Assailing the notice issued vide Rc.No.29/2025, dated 20.02.2026 (Ex.P1), by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3, the above writ petition was filed. 2. Heard Sri K. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appeared p. 3 for respondent No.1, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 2 & 3 and Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for respondent No.4. Notice of respondent No.5 is dispensed with since no order is passed affecting the right and interest of respondent No.5.] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner owns a house site admeasuring 65.34 Square Yards in Sy.No.282 of Kothapalli Village, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioner’s father-in- law constructed a thatched shed. Thereafter, the Gram Panchayat assessed the house to the tax and assigned Door No.1-149. Respondent No.5, seems to have made a complaint to Respondent No.4 regarding the encroachments in Sy.No.282 of Kothapalli Village. Acting upon the said complaint, respondent No.4 conducted a survey, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, and thereafter, the notice impugned vide Ex.P1 was issued. The petitioner submitted an explanation vide Ex.P2. However, without considering the explanation, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3 is attempting to demolish the structure. 4. On the other hand, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 2 & 3, would submit that a survey was conducted and in the survey, the authorities found the encroachment made by the petitioner. Accordingly, Ex.P1 was issued. The petitioner submitted an explanation vide Ex.P2. He would further submit that the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3 will consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders. 5. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, inviting the counter- affidavit will not serve any purpose, and the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, with the following directions: p. 4 (i) Respondent No.3 shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner to Ex.P1 notice by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. (ii) The respondent No.3 shall also furnish a copy of the survey report said to have been conducted by respondent No.4 to the petitioner, enabling her to submit a proper explanation. (iii) Till a reasoned order is passed, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.3 shall not take any coercive steps pursuant to Ex.P1 notice. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 24.03.2026 TVN p. 5 66 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7736 of 2026 Date: 24.03.2026 TVN