APHC010600042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 30991/2025 Between:

Peram Bapiraju @ Subramanyam ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. M K RAJ KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2. Yarraguntla.Koteswara Rao,Standing Counsel For Zilla Praja Parishads,Mandal Praja Parishads and Gra The Court made the following order:

Aggrieved by the issuance of impugned notice dated 13.10.2025 by the

3^rd respondent directing the petitioner to remove the roof shed bearing D.No.3-320 situated in Chigurukota Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Eluru district, without following the procedure contemplated under law, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Sri G.Sai Kumar, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for MPP, ZPP & Gram Panchayat and Smt Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj Department.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject house and obtained electricity connection. He further submitted that, on the allegation that the petitioner has constructed the said house by encroaching the main road, the 3^rd respondent issued notice dated 13.10.2025 directing the petitioner to remove the encroachments within 24 hours, otherwise they will remove the unauthorized structures and recover the expenses incurred from the petitioner. He further contended that the said impugned notice was issued without issuing any prior show cause notice seeking explanation and without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, the impugned notice though styled as notice, virtually it is a direction given to the petitioner to remove the structures in the subject property by giving 24 hours time. If the direction contained in the said notice is allowed to materialize, the rights of the petitioners will be affected. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing counsel for Gram Panchayat fairly conceded that concerned authority ought to have issued a show-cause notice before issuing the impugned notice and 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 13.10.2025. 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 their explanation. 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 important principles of natural justice.

6. However, Rule 4 of G.O.Ms.No.188 dated 21.07.2011 relates to eviction of encroachments which is extracted hereunder:

“4. EVICTION OF ENCROACHMENTS (i) Where it is brought to the notice that any property of the Panchayat is under occupation of any