Administrative orders affecting property rights must adhere to the principles of natural justice, requiring the authority to consider relevant evidence and provide the affected party an opportunity to be heard before passing an adverse order.

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the order in ROC.No.01/2025 dated passed by the 3rd respondent directing the petitioner to vacate from the .1.2026 land and further action of the officials of the respondents 3 and 4 in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.05 cents of land in Sy.No.78/5P in Billanapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, without considering the petitioner's representation dated 9.2.2026 as illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 3 and 4 not to dispossess the petitioner from the above land and 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 respondents 3 and 4 not to interfere with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment over the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.1.05 cents of land in Sy.No.78/5P in Billanapalli Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass

The Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard Sri Kochiri Raja Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development for respondents 1 & 2; Ms.Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for 4th respondent and Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for 3rd respondent.

2. Assailing the notice issued by the 3rd respondent vide ROC.No.01/2025, dated ...01.2026, the above writ petition is filed.

3. The petitioner’s mother was assigned an extent of Ac.1.05 cents of land in S.No.78/5P in Billanapalli village. The name of the petitioner’s mother was updated in the Revenue of Rights, a Pattadar passbook and title deed vide Ex.P2. Be that as it may, a notice vide Rc.No.01/2025, dated 11.07.2025 (Ex.P4) was issued by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner’s mother submitted an explanation on 21.07.2025. Without considering the said explanation, the Panchayat Secretary of the 3rd respondent issued proceedings impugned vide ROC.No.01/2025, dated …01.2026 (Ex.P6). Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an explanation (Ex.P7).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s mother submitted an explanation to the Tahsildar pursuant to Ex.P4, since the copy of the notice was marked to the 4th respondent- Tahsildar. He would also submit that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, and the 3rd respondent failed to consider the patta (Ex.P1). He would also submit that some of the persons against whom orders similar to Ex.P6 were passed, approached this Court and filed a writ petition, and the said writ petition was disposed of.

5. Learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent did not dispute the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4867 of 2026 dated 20.02.2026 in respect of persons similarly situated to that of the petitioner.

6. A perusal of Ex.P6 proceedings does not indicate consideration of Ex.P1 patta; Ex.P2 pattadar pass book and title deed, and Ex.P3 land tax receip