Dasi Hanumantha Reddy Vs The Palukuru Gram Panchayat

Dasi Hanumantha Reddy, S/o Late Ramasubba Reddy, Aged about 58 yrs, Occ; Pvt. Service R/o Plot No. 15, Sal Sandhya Nilayam, Sri Krishna Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad

¶10

Dasi Prabhakar Reddy, S/o Late Ramasubba Reddy, Aged about 55 yrs, Occ- Pvt. Service, R/o Bagh Ambeer, Kukatpally, Hyderabad

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Palukuru Gram Panchayat, Palukuru village, Banaganapalle

¶14

Mandal, Nandyal District Rept. By its Panchayat Secretary

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

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 or direction more particularly one in^the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in proceeding to demolish the house of the petitioners bearing H.No.273 situated in Ward No.2, Palukuru Grama Panchayat, Banaganapalle mandal. Nandyal District under the guise of road widening without following due process of law, without issuing any notice or prior opportunity and without initiating the Land Acquisition proceedings as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Articles 14. 19. 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and

¶18

consequently direct the respondent No.1 not acquire the land of the petitioners without following due process of law and further direct the respondent No.1 to restore the building of the petitioners at the cost of the respondent in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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.1 not to enter into the land of the petitioners situated in the house bearing H.No.2-73, situated in Ward No.2, Palukuru Grama Panchayat, Banaganapalle mandal, Nandyal District fof purpose of road widening or laying the drainage canal without completing the Land Acquisition proceedings pending disposal of^the writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. NAGENDRA REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :SRI D.M. VIDYA SAGAR FOR

¶21

SRI M. SUDHEER, SC FOR ZPP, MPP & GRAM PANCHAYAT' Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI PANUKU RAJESH KUMAR, AGP ^

¶22

FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

[3328]

¶24

APHC010101652025

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶26

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 5217/2025

¶30

Between:

¶31

I.DASi HANUMANTHA REDDY, S/0 LATE RAMASUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58YRS, OCC- PVT. SERVICE R/0 PLOT NO. 15,^SAL SANDHYA NILAYAM SRI KRISHNA NAGAR, KUKATPALLY HYDERABAD

¶32

2.DASI PRABHAKAR REDDY, S/0 LATE RAMASUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 55YRS, OCCPVT. SERVICE R/0 BAGH AMBEER, KUKATPALLY HYDERABAD

¶33

...PETITIONER(S)

¶34

AND

¶35

1.THE PALUKURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, PALUKURU VILLAGE, BANAGANAPALLE MANDAL NANDYAL DISTRICT REPT. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY

¶36

2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶39

1.PNAGENDRA REDDY

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

2

¶42

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶43

¶44

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

¶45

Heard Sri P. Nagendra Reddy, learned Counsel for the^{WritPetitioners} and Sri D.M. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing^{onbehalfofSriM.} Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for Respondent No.1 and Sri Panuku Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for Respondent No.2.

¶46

Sri D.M. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing^{onbehalfofSriM.} Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for Respondent No.1 has submitted the Written Instruction along with some photographs and material documents furnished by the Panchayat Secretary, Palukur, Kurnool District, dated 20.03.2025. Copy of^{theWrittenInstruction} along with photographs and material documents are also supplied to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners. The same are taken on record.

¶47

The Written Instruction would indicate that the Official Respondents have issued notice to the Writ Petitioners on 21.11.2024. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has taken this Court to the contents of the said notice and would submit that the said notice is vague, inasmuch as the Respondents have not explained all the encroachments. He would^{alsosubmitthatthe} Respondents have not conducted any survey in the presence of the Writ Petitioners.

¶48

Sri D.M. Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing^{onbehalfofSriM.} Sudheer, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for Respondent No.1 would submit that the Writ Petitioners are not residing in the present Village, and therefore, the notices were stuck^{onthehousesofthe} Writ Petitioners.

¶49

3

¶50

4

¶51

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Official Respondents have not adhered to the due process of law, inasmuch as the Official Respondents have neither issued Advance Notices to the Writ Petitioners nor they have conducted any survey in the presence of the Writ Petitioners by informing the time and date of the conduct of the survey to the Writ Petitioners.

¶52

It is settled law that even an encroacher cannot be evicted without following the due process of law as stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and Another : (1982) 2 see 134. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also held that summary proceedings cannot be initiated, if the encroacher has been in long standing possession. In any case, the facts in the present case would indicate that the Official Respondents have not adhered to the due process^oflaw. 7. In this view of the matter, the notice issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Palukur dated 21.11.2024 is set aside. However, liberty is granted to the Official Respondents to initiate fresh proceedings, if so advised, by following the due process of law. S.With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

¶53

5.Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in t^rms of this order.

Sd/- M SRINiVAS

//TRUE COPY//

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

To,