ORDER :

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J.

Heard Sri Gunda Gopi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondents 1 and 3 to 5; Ms. P. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 2 and 6 Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent No.7; Sri V.V. Satish, learned counsel for respondent No.8 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, for respondent No.9.

2. Assailing the final order, dated 26.02.2026 (Ex.P1) issued by respondent No.7, alleging unauthorised construction in an extent of 4.2 square meters at D.No.101-18-367 (old D.No.18-367), situated at Dawaleshwaram Village, Rajahmundry Mandal, East Godavari District, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.

3. A notice was issued to the petitioner vide No.42/2026 dated 30.01.2026, pointing out unauthorised construction made by the petitioner and the markings given by the Mandal Surveyor. Assailing the said notice, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3340 of 2026, and the same was disposed of on 05.02.2026, directing the petitioner to submit an explanation to the said notice, treating it as a show-cause notice, apart from other directions. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an explanation (Ex.P6) on 18.02.2026. Upon receipt of the explanation, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.7 passed the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.7 failed to adhere to the directions given in W.P.No.3340 of 2026. Learned counsel would submit that without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner pursuant to Ex.P6, and without giving breathing time pursuant to Ex.P1, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.7 demolished the staircase.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 would fairly submit that the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.7 failed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would submit that a notice will be issued to the petitioner fixing the date of hearing, and thereafter a fresh order will be passed by considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 18.02.2026.

6. The point for consideration is whether the final order, dated 26.02.2026 (Ex.P1) issued by the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.7, is legally sustainable?

7. Shorn of all the details, the then Mandal Revenue Officer issued a possession certificate vide D.Dis (B)1008/95 dated 31.03.1999 (Ex.P2) in respect of 72 square yards in survey No.47/1, Yerrakonda area, Dawaleswaram. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application to the local authority as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, seeking permission to construct the building, which was sanctioned vide B.A.No.55 of 2021 dated 15.04.2021 (Ex.P11). Subsequently, the petitioner constructed a house and the same was assessed to tax. The petitioner has been paying tax, as seen from Ex.P9.

8. Be that as it may, a notice dated 30.01.2026 (Ex.P5) was issued to the petitioner, pointing out unauthorised construction and the markings given by the Mandal Surveyor. Impugning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3340 of 2026 and pursuant to the disposal of said writ petition, the petitioner submitted an elaborate explanation (Ex.P6). Having referred to the petitioner’s explanation, the Panchayat Secretary of respondent No.7, for the reasons best known, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the order impugned. The final order (Ex.P1) passed by the authority is contrary to the averments in the notice dated 30.01.2026 (Ex.P5) vis-à-vis the alleged unauthorised construction.

9. As pointed out supra, W.P.No.3340 of 2026 filed by the petitioner assailing the notice, dated 30.01.2026 (Ex.P5) was disposed of on 05.02.2026 with the following directions:

i) The notice dated 30.01.2026 (Ex.P1) shall be treated as a show cause notice.

ii) The petitioner shall submit an explanatio