A show-cause notice must clearly specify the material grounds and the proposed action to satisfy the principles of natural justice; a vague notice that functions as a final order without providing a meaningful opportunity to respond is legally unsustainable.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order of direction, particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the highhanded the action of Respondent No. 05 in issuing a demolition notice to the petitioners dated 28.01.2026, proposing demolition of the G-i-3 residential R.C.C. building situated in Plot Nos. 108 and 109, in a layout approved under L.P. No. 51/84, Survey No. 60, at Pidimgoyyi Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, without giving any notice as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, and in violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14,21 and 300A of constitution of India and consequently to set aside the orders of the respondent No.05 dated 28.01.2026 and direct the respondent no. 05 not to demolish the building of the petitioner, without following due process of law and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 05 not to demolish the petitioners property in the G- i-3 residential R.C.C. building situated in Plot Nos. 108 and 109, in a layout approved under L.P. No. 51/84, Survey No. 60, at Pidimgoyyi Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District by suspending the notice dated 28.01.2026 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. RAJANI NELAKUDITI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

The Court made the following:

:: ORDER ::

Assailing the notice issued by the Panchayat Secretary – respondent No.5 vide Roc.Nil/2025, dated 28.01.2026 (Ex.P1), directing the 1st petitioner to remove the encroachment portion within seven days, the above writ petition was filed.

Heard Ms. Rajani Nelakuditi, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, appeared for respondents 1 & 3; Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for respondents 2 & 4 and Sri P. Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondent No.5.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of Plot Nos.108 & 109 in L.P.No.51/84, Sy.No.60 situated at Pidimgoyyi Village, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. The petitioners acquired the aforementioned plots by way of registered will vide document No.109 of 2020, dated 10.11.2020. The 1st petitioner obtained permission from respondent No.5 in 1993 for the construction of G+3 residential R.C.C. building. Thereafter, the building was constructed. The said building was assessed for property tax. The local authority also assigned door numbers.

While the things stood thus, the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent issued the notice Ex P.1, impugned in the writ petition, without disclosing particulars of the alleged encroachment made by the petitioners, and the date on which the survey was conducted and further directed to remove the encroachment. Learned counsel would also submit that the notice impugned violates the Principles of Natural Justice.

Sri P. Chaitanya, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5, on written instructions, would submit that a survey was conducted by the Mandal Surveyor, wherein it was found that the petitioners encroached upon approximately 200 square yards of the Government site and made constructions. Since the construction was made by encroaching upon Government land, the impugned notice vide Ex.P1 was issued.

When the court pointed out the omission of the survey date and the dimensions of the alleged encroachment, learned counsel reiterated the contents of the notice.

Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no d