APHC010003552026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 360/2026 Between:

Kunchala Ankamma Raju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SHAIK ASIF Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following order:

Impugning the notice dated 19.12.2025 issued by the 4^th respondent- Gram Panchayat(Panchayat Secretary), the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Shaik Asif, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat and Ms Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit submitted that, the petitioner is running a small tea shop in the vacant site belonging to the GramPanchayat in Sy.No.1187 in Santhanuthalapadu village, Prakasam District and a lease agreement was executed in his favour on 01.02.2023 for a period of 3 years (valid upto 28.02.2025) and the petitioner has also obtained electricity connection and paying regular bills. He further submitted that the Gram Panchayat has passed a resolution No.12 dated 05.10.2024 granting lease of vast extents of the subject land occupied by the petitioner to the 5^th respondent for a period of 5 years without any public auction or transperancy. Later the said Resolution No.12 was cancelled vide Resolution No.21 on the ground that the said lease was illegal.

He further submitted that, the 5^th respondent filed W.P.No.6627/2025 seeking to hand over the possession of the lands based on the Resolution No.12 and obtained the final order dated 25.09.2025 wherein this court has directed the Gram Panchayat to hand over the subject lands to the 5^th respondent pursuant to the resolution dated 05.10.2024. The said order was obtained suppressing Resolution No.21 (cancellation of Resolution No.12).

He further submitted that, solely basing on the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.6627/2025 dated 25.09.2025, the respondent authorities have issued the impugned notice dated 19.12.2025 directing the petitioner to remove his shop immediately, failing which they would take steps against him. Though it is styled as a notice, the impugned notice virtually contains a direction to the petitioner. Issuing notice of such kind without issuance of any prior show cause notice is unsustainable under law. If such a direction is allowed to materialize, the rights of the petitioner will be affected. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat submitted that in case, if this Court inclines to interfere with the said impugned notice/proceedings, liberty may be given to the concerned authority to take steps in accordance with law.

5. Perused the impugned notice/proceedings dated 19.12.2025. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned notice does not speak anything about prior issuance of any show-cause notice to the petitioner seeking his explanation.

6. It is well settled that, even an encroacher is entitled for a reasonable notice. The first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one o