ORDER :

Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks declaration; that the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notice, dated 16.4.2021, to the petitioner, directing him to remove the construction of the house in an extent of 7.25 meters within three days from the date of receipt of the notice on the, ground that the petitioner encroached on to the Municipal site, without calling for his explanation, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently, sought direction to the respondents not to take any coercive steps and interfere with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said construction.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for 1st respondent and Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities, for respondents 2 and 3.

3. As per the facts pleaded by the petitioner, he has purchased an old house bearing Door No. 7/2634, which is in an extent of 97.2 Sq.yards in Ward No. 7 in Proddatur Town of YSR Kadapa District, on 17.10.2016 from one Mr. Sakam Vijaya Bhaskar. The petitioner has been paying properly tax and water tax to the Municipality in respect of the said house regularly. It is stated that the said house was constructed after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipality for construction of the house by his vendor. There was no objection from the Municipality or from any person regarding the construction of the said house for all this length of time.

4. While so, the Municipal authorities have served a notice under Section 192 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, (for short, the "Act"), on the petitioner stating that the petitioner is an encroacher and that the house in question was constructed by encroaching on to the Municipal site and that electricity wires were passing above his house and thereby directed to remove the construction.

5. Now the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that notice under Section 192 of the Act for removal of the construction was issued straightaway without even issuing any show-cause to the petitioner calling for his explanation as to why the said construction is to be removed and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation. Therefore, the petitioner assails the impugned notice only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

6. Sri N. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, would submit that Section 192 of the Act did not contemplate issuance of any such show-cause notice to the petitioner before taking any action under Section 192 of the Act. Therefore, no show-cause notice is required to be issued to the petitioner under the Act. So, he would submit that the petitioner cannot assail the impugned notice on the said ground.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that even though Section 192 of the Act did not contemplate issuance of any show-cause notice that the principles of natural justice demand issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioner before taking any coercive steps of demolishing the building in question and, more particularly, when the dispute involves civil consequences. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Shafiya Begum v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Order dated 16.11.2015 passed in WP No. 37161 of 2015 (AP HC), 2016 (3) ALD 22.

8. As can be seen from the said judgment, that was also a case of issuance of notice under Section 192 of the Act without issuing any prior show-cause notice to the petitioner therein. The validity of the said notice was questioned on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. Similar contention that, as Section 192 of the Act did not contemplate issuance of any such notice, that no show-cause notice is required to be given was raised in the said case. This Court did not a