Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rapaka Aruku Dasu vs The State Of Ap on 27 November, 2023
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No.29241 of 2023
Between:-
Rapaka Aruku Dasu & Anr .... Petitioners
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh,
Rep. by its Prl. Secretary,
Panchayat Raj & Rural
Development Department
& 6 others., .... Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Harish Kumar
Rasineni
Counsel for Respondents : G.P for Panchayat Raj
& Rural Development
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard learned counsel representing respondent No.6-Gram Panchayat. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the notices dated 13.10.2023 & 31.10.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent to the petitioners in respect of the subject matter property as illegal, arbitrary etc.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners made his submissions with reference to the averments made in the Writ 2 Petition. His main contention is that initially the 6th respondent has issued notice dated 13.10.2023 to the 1st petitioner and in response to the same, a reply dated 16.10.2023 was submitted. He submits that without taking into consideration the said reply, the 6th respondent issued notice dated 31.10.2023 and on the basis of the same, the petitioners herein are sought to be dispossessed from the subject matter property on the premise that they are making unauthorized constructions. He further submits that the action on the part of the 6th respondent without considering the explanation/reply submitted by the 1st petitioner is contrary to the principles of natural justice.
4. Learned Standing Counsel representing the 6th respondent on the other hand sought to justify the action initiated against the petitioners. However, he has not placed any order passed by the 6th respondent if any, after considering the explanation/reply submitted by the 1st petitioner.
5. Be that as it may, as seen from the notice dated 13.10.2023 issued to the 1st petitioner and also the 3 subsequent notice dated 31.10.2023, it is discernible that though the same are styled as notices, they contain directions which are in the nature of order. It is also discernible that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why action shall not be initiated against them in respect of construction alleged to have been made illegally by them. In the absence of adopting such course of action i.e., issuing show cause notice, no action can validly be initiated against the petitioners by issuing directions.
6. Though the impugned notices are liable to be set aside on that ground, this Court taking into consideration that the 1st petitioner had already submitted a reply to the notice dated 13.10.2023, deems it appropriate to direct the 6th respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four (04) weeks before taking further action in the matter. Further, the 2nd petitioner is granted two (02) weeks time to submit an explanation/reply to the notice dated 31.10.2023. On receipt of the said explanation/reply, the 6th respondent shall pass an order in accordance with law within a period of four (04) 4 weeks thereafter. Till appropriate orders are passed, no coercive action in respect of the subject matter property shall be restored to. Further, there shall also be a direction to the petitioners not to make any further constructions in the subject matter property in the meanwhile.
7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 27.11.2023 RKS