(Prayer: 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 topleased to issue a Writ Order or direction particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 6 respondent in making efforts to dispossessing the petitioner from land to an extent of Ac. 0.46 cents in survey No. 587-2 of Kethavaram Village, Buttayagudem Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh despite of submitting reply by the petitioner to the impugned notices issued by the 6th respondent without following procedure established by the law as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and the act of authorities is against the principle laid down by the Honble Apex court in the case of RAME GOWDA V-S M VARADAPPA NAIDU Citation 2003 LawSuit(SC) 1248 and consequential set aside the Impugned Notices Dated 04/10/2023, 27/10/2023 and 27/11/2023 as the said notices issued without adhering the procedure contemplated under GO MS. No 188 dated 21.07.2011 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere over the possession of the petitioners land of extent Ac. 0.46 cents in survey No. 587-2 of Kethavaram Village, Buttayagudem Mandal, Eluru District, Andhra Pradesh, except due process of law contemplated under GO MS NO 188 dated 21.07.2011 and pass)

1. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent no.6 is making efforts to dispossess him from the land in an extent of Ac.0-46 cents in Survey No.587-2 of Kethavaram Village, Buttayagudem Mandal, Eluru District, without following procedure established by law, despite submitting reply to the notices issued by respondent no.6 and consequently set aside the impugned notices dated 04.10.2023, 27.10.2023 and 27.11.2023.

2. Heard Ms. Nallanagula Lalitha Sree, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Cousnel for Panchayat.

3. Ms.Nallanagula Lalitha Sree, learned counsel, while reiterating the contents of the writ affidavit would contend that the petitioner and his family members have been in possession of the subject land and doing cultivation for more than 40 years and the petitioner has been paying property as well as water tax to the concerned authorities and while so the panchayat authorities, without mentioning any provision of law and without considering the fact that the petitioner’s has been in possession of the property since more than 40 years, issued impugned notice dated 04.10.2023. He would further contend that the petitioner submitted his reply on 28.10.2023, but the authorities without considering his reply, issued notices on 27.10.2023 and 27.11.2023, for which the petitioner submitted reply on 02.04.2024. He would further contend that without passing any orders on the reply submitted by the petitioner, the authorities, having kept quiet all the while, are now attempting to dispossess the petitioner from his land, which they are not entitled to. He would further contend that the authorities have to follow law for dispossessing the petitioner from the subject land and as the authorities are trying to dispossess the petitioner without following law, they are to be restrained from doing so. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ petition.

4. On the other hand, Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel, would contend that the petitioner encroached an extent of Ac.0-46 cents classified as ‘vagu poramboke’, as such the authorities have issued notices to the petitioner to evict from the said land. He would further contend that there is neither illegality nor procedural irregularity and the writ petition being meritless deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been in possession of the subject property whatever may be the length of such possession. The Panchayat issued notices dated 04.10.2023, 27.10.2023 and 27.11.2023. All the notices contained a mandate to the petitioner to evict from the subject property by fixing fifteen (15) days time from the date of receipt of the notice.

                  None of the notices was accompanied by any prior show-cause-notice. Issuing the notice containing a mandate such as eviction must be preceded by show- cause notice seeking explanation of the petitioner. The material available on record would further indicate that the petitioner submitted explanation twice. Admittedly, no order has been passed considering the explanations so submitted by the petitioner and therefore, without passing orders, issuing series of notices is unsustainable. Hence, as there is flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned notices are liable to be set aside.

7. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned notices dated 04.10.2023, 27.10.2023 and 27.11.2023. However, this order does not preclude the authorities from taking steps against the petitioner in relation to the subject property in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.