APHC010531742024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 27479/2024 Between: 1. P. SRINIVASULU,, S/O. CHINNA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, CUMBUM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. P. CHINNA SUBBAIAH,, S/O. PEDDA CHENCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, CUMBUM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE RAVIPADU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETAIY, RAVIPADU VILLAGE, CUMBUM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CUMBUM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. MUTHYALAPATI VENKATA GURAVAMMA, W/O. KOTA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. RAVIPADU VILLAGE, CUMBAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. MUTHYALAPATI LAKSHMI KANTHAMMA, W/O. SANKAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. RA/IPADU VILLAGE, CUMBAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT . Page 2 of 9 ...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 may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the impugned notice dt.22. 01.2024 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, Consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents not to interfere with the land of the petitioners admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.08 Va cents in Sy.No.l84 of Ravipadu Village, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the impugned notice dt.22.11.2024 by directing the respondents not to interfere with the land of the petitioners admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.08 7^ cents in Sy.No.l84 of Ravipadu Village, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 vacate the order dated. 27.11.2024 passed in WP No. 27479 of 2024 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 grant leave to the petitioner in filing of the reply affidavit filed in WP No. 27479 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV p. 3 2. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Impugning the notice dated 22.11.2024 (Ex.P1), issued by respondent No. 2, Panchayat Secretary, the above writ petition was filed. 2. Heard Sri Sudhakar, learned counsel representing Sri V. Vinod K Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appeared for respondent No.1; Sri Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.2; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appeared for respondent No.3 and Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel appeared for respondents 4 & 5. 3. (a) Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that 1st petitioner is the owner and possessor of land of an extent of Ac.0.08 ½ cents in Sy.No.184 of Ravipadu Village, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District. The 1st petitioner, along with the 2nd petitioner (1st petitioner’s father), made an application to the competent authority, seeking house site pattas. Respondent No.3 issued possession certificates bearing Nos.468/2021 and 469/2021, allotting Ac.0.01 ½ cents each in Ravipadu Village. The petitioners have constructed the house and compound wall in part of the land, and the remaining land is being used as a cattle shed. (b) Respondents 4 & 5 filed W.P.No.37955 of 2022, alleging that the petitioners have encroached upon the Bandidari and thus prayed to remove the encroachment. The writ petition was disposed of on 23.11.2022, directing the Tahsildar to take necessary action on the representation dated 20.10.2022 made by the petitioners therein. Respondent No.3, issued an endorsement dated 04.01.2023, stating that the land in Sy.No.184 is described as p. 4 Gramakantam and hence, the Gram Panchayat is the appropriate authority. Thereafter, respondents 4 & 5 filed W.P.No.9602 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of on 03.05.2024, directing the authorities to conduct a survey and identify the encroachments and further directed the Gram Panchayat to take necessary steps against the respondents therein by issuing notice to all the concerned, by following the due procedure of law and also by considering the directions given in W.P.(PIL).No.140/2022. (c) The Mandal Deputy Surveyor conducted a survey and issued a report dated 18.07.2024. The petitioners constructed a building in an extent of Ac.0.04 cents, and the remaining Ac.0.04 ½ cents is in possession of the petitioners. The 1st petitioner submitted an explanation to the notice dated 05.08.2024, issued by respondent No.2. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.2 issued the notice dated 22.11.2024, impugned in the writ petition. 4. Initially, an interim order was granted on 27.11.2024, and the same was extended from time to time. Later, the interim order was vacated by proceedings dated 02.01.2026. The petitioners have filed an intra-court appeal vide No.68 of 2026. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeal, and ordered to maintain the status quo till 29.01.2026 and thereafter, directed the learned Single Judge to pass appropriate orders. The writ petition was listed on 31.01.2026, and the interim order granted was extended till 02.02.2026 and again extended by two more weeks on 03.02.2026. 5. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It was contended, inter alia, that an extent of Ac.55.60 cents in Sy.No.184 of Ravipadu Village is classified as Gramakantam. Two possession certificates were issued in favour of the petitioners to an extent of Ac.0.015 cents by the Tahsildar-respondent No.3. As per the report of Mandal Deputy Surveyor dated 18.11.2024, the petitioners have encroached upon Ac.0.01 cents. In pursuance of the report of the Mandal Deputy Surveyor, respondent No.2 issued the eviction notice dated 05.08.2024 and invited an explanation. The p. 5 petitioners submitted an explanation and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 6. A separate counter-affidavit was filed by respondents 4 & 5. The petitioners have filed a reply to the said counter-affidavit. 7. Sri Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Hruthik, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri K. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 & 5, reiterated the contentions as per the averments made in the writ affidavit and the respective counter-affidavits. 8. As seen from the material available on record, it is a third round of litigation. Earlier, on two occasions, respondents 4 & 5 filed two writ petitions i.e. W.P.Nos.37955 of 2022 & 9602 of 2023. As seen from Ex.P8, the Mandal Deputy Surveyor, Cumbum Mandal, submitted a report to the Tahsildar dated 18.07.2024 stating that the petitioners were given possession certificates in respect of Ac.0.015 cents each. However, the petitioners have in possession of Ac.0.085 cents. The petitioners have failed to submit any documents regarding the possession of Ac.0.055 cents. The authority failed to identify the boundaries of the road, since the property is described as Gramakantam. Thereafter, the notice impugned was issued to the petitioners. A perusal of Ex.P1 notice, it does not contain any reference of survey said to have been conducted by the Mandal Deputy Surveyor on 18.07.2024 and the earlier proceedings, except reference to an order dated 03.05.2024 passed in W.P.No.9602 of 2023. 9. 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 p. 6 principle of natural justice. A show-cause notice pointing out violations would align with the principle of natural justice. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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”. 13. 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 p. 7 1 (2014) 9 SCC 105 2 (1980) 3 SCC 1 3 (2021) 2 SCC 551 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.” 14. In the case at hand, the Ex.P1 notice does not contain any of the reference, except for an order dated 03.05.2025 passed in W.P.No.9602 of 2023, and the report said to have been handed over to the Surveyor by the office of the Gram Panchayat. The notice should have contained all the particulars and the relevant violations, enabling the notice to submit an appropriate explanation. However, these requirements are lacking in the notice impugned. 15. Though learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 & 5 contended that there was collusion between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 authority, this Court is not persuaded by the said submission. In fact, pending the writ petition, after the interim order was vacated, respondent No.2 issued one more show-cause notice vide R.C.No.03/2026, dated 31.01.2026, calling upon the petitioner to submit an explanation. The copy of the show-cause notice is placed before this Court. 16. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed. The notice dated 22.11.2024 (Ex.P1) is hereby set aside. The petitioners shall submit an explanation to the show-cause notice dated 31.01.2026 by annexing all the relevant documents to the respondent No.2, within 15 days from today. Thereafter, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass a reasoned order by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to respondents 4 & 5. Page 8 of 9 The learned respondent No.2 shall also consider the survey report of the Mandal Deputy Surveyor and other documents produced by the petitioner in support of the petitioners’ case at the time of hearing. The respondent No.2 shall complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two (02) months. Till such a reasoned order is passed, respondent No.2 shall not interfere with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of Ac.0.08 ½ cents in Sy.No.184 of Ravipadu Village, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam District. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 17.02.2026 TVN p. 9 151 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.27479 OF 2026 Date: 17.02.2026 TVN