w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



K. Ramalingamma v/s State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Velagapudi, Amaravathi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UP2008PLC035742

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PB1949PTC000515

Company & Directors' Information:- G RAJ & COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1993PTC058140

Company & Directors' Information:- R M RAJ AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1952PTC002146

Company & Directors' Information:- S R RURAL INDIA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U80302TN2005PTC058249

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ & RAJ PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U51109WB1991PTC052055

    Writ Petition No. 13095 of 2020

    Decided On, 05 August 2020

    At, High Court of Andhra Pradesh

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD

    For the Petitioner: K. Ramalingamma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development.



Judgment Text

1. This is a writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioner to declare the action of the 5th respondent in issuing notice vide RC.No.14/2020, dated 10.07.2020 demanding the petitioner to remove the existing shed in an extent of Ac.2.07 cents in Survey No.20-5 and Ac.2.93 cents in Survey No.20-7 of Yerramanchi village, Penukonda Mandal, Anantapur District and also trying to demolish the same is illegal and arbitrary.2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and respondents.3. The Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property since 2001 and he has constructed a shed about ten years back, for storing agricultural implements. It is further submitted that the notice issued by the Gram Panchayat is not in accordance with law.4. The Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has constructed a shed in the site and proceeding with further construction without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat. Therefore it is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.67, dated 26.02.2002 and provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act 1994 Sec.121.5. The impugned notice is in the nature of a direction to remove the shed in the schedule premises. There was no opportunity given to the petitioner to explain about the alleged illegal construction. Therefore the impugned notice has to be considered as a show cause notice. The petitioner has submitted her explanation dated 15.07.2020 to the 5th respondent.6. Prima facie, the notice issued by the 5th respondent reveals that five days time has been given to the petitioner to remove the constructions. The notice does not show that any opportunity was given to the petitioner to give her explanation for the alleged illegal constructions. The respondent without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to explain about the illegal constructions straightaway issued notice giving five days time to remove the alleged illegal constructions otherwise the Gram Panchayat would remove the same and collect the expenditure thereon from the petitioner. The notice clearly shows that there was no show cause notice issued prior to issuing impugned notice giving opportunity to the petitioner to explain about the alleged illegal constructions. The principles of natural justice are not followed by the respondent before issuing the notice.7. The respondent being Gram Panchayat is expected to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain about the alleged illegal constructions. The issuance of the notice is one sided as there was no opportunity for the petitioner to explain about the same before passing final order of demolition.8. In the light of the submission made by learned Government Pleader for Gram Panchayat, the 6th respondent shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 15.07.2020 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In the meanwh

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ile, both parties shall maintain status quo in the schedule property and the petitioner shall not make any further constructions in the schedule property till then.9. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of with the consent of both the counsels. No costs.Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.
O R