APHC010003522026 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: 356/2026 Between:

Syandamuri Laxmana Rao, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order:

Impugning the notice dated 13.08.2025 issued by the 2^nd respondent Gram Panchayat (Panchayat Secretary), the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, 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 petitioners are ‘Rajaka’ by caste and eking out their livelihood by doing dhobi works in the village. He further submitted that the forefathers of the petitioners have occupied the land classified as ‘Gramakantam’ in Sy.No.316 situated in Budithipeta village H/o China Sirlam Gram Panchayat of Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram district and after their demise, the petitioners are continuing in the possession by raising huts and cattle sheds. He further submitted that, upon the request made by the petitioners and other villagers, the 2^nd respondent Gram Panchayat has also passed a resolution on 08-04-2025 to allot the land of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.316 for Dhobi Ghat for the petitioners and other villagers who are ‘Rajaka’ by caste.

He further submitted that, while so, the 2^nd respondent issued the impugned notice dated 13.08.2025 to the petitioner nos.1 & 2 directing them to remove the huts raised by them within seven(07) days, failing which they would take steps against them. He further submitted that, to the said notices, as a precautionary measure, the petitioner nos.1 & 2 have submitted their explanation but the respondents have not considered the same and during the last week of the December 2025, the 2^nd respondent has visited the subject lands and orally informed the petitioners to vacate the subject lands and also to remove the huts raised by them. Though it is styled as a notice, the impugned notice virtually contains a direction to the petitioners. 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 13.08.2025. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned notice does not speak anything about prior issuance of any show-cause notice to the petitioners seeking their 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 of the most impor