The requirement of a fair hearing and proper notice before demolition actions against alleged encroachments.

ORDER :

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J.

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…..pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents especially the 13^th respondent in issuing the impugned notice vide RC.No.31/2025 dated 03-06-2025 to me, apparently at the instructions of the 4^th, 8^th and 11^th respondents, without specifying the extent and description (Survey No. etc.,) of the alleged encroachments, and action of the Respondent Nos.8, 11 and 13 in directing me to remove the alleged „illegal encroachment‟ within seven (7) days and threatening to demolish the building and action of the 13^th respondent in trying to demolish part of the commercial building „PVP Complex‟ situated in D.No.7- 61, 7-62 and 7-63 Nehru Circle, Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Sathya Sai District, admeasuring Ac.0.095 cents (456 sq.yds) situated in Sy. No.447-3, without issuing proper notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing, and demolition of staircase of PVP Complex, on 27-07-2025 (4PM onwards) and 28-07-2025 till 1.30 AM), without considering the oral objections of the petitioner, even without bothering to look into the documents of the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal, highhanded, without jurisdiction, and unconstitutional and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and blatant violation of the procedure prescribed by under law, and against the well settled principles of natural justice, and consequentially set aside the notice bearing R.C.No.31/2025 dated 03-06-2025, and pass…..”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing D.No.7-61, 7-62 & 7-63, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.095 cents situated in Sy.No.447-3 of Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Sathya Sai District. The said land was acquired by the petitioner through succession from his father vide partition deed bearing Doc.No.776/2019, dated 12.03.2019. Prior to that, in the year 2007, the petitioner's father had constructed a commercial complex under the name and style of "PVP Complex" after obtaining a building approval plan bearing BAP.No.09/2005 and P.R.No.223, dated 21.11.2005, from the Gram Panchayat. Since then, the petitioner has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the subject property. However, the 13^th respondent issued a notice vide R.C.No.31/2025, dated 03.06.2025, directing the petitioner to remove the construction within seven (07) days, alleging that the said construction was made by an encroachment.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.13 and 14 had previously carried out the demarcation of encroachments along the R & B main road, during which no portion of the petitioner’s property was marked or identified as an encroachment. Contrary to those earlier demarcations, now the respondent Gram Panchayat issued the impugned notice dated 03.06.2025, directing the petitioner to remove the construction over and above the alleged encroachment within seven (07) days, failing which steps/action would be initiated. Notably, the petitioner’s structure had never been marked as an encroachment, and therefore the petitioner, under the bona fide belief that no explanation was required, as such, he did not r