THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6687 of 2011 Date:16.03.2011 Between: Pappu China Suryanarayana Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The Govt.of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Kakinada, West Godavari District and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Siva Bhami Reddy Counsel for Respondent Nos1 & 3: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Raju For Sri G.Elisha The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice in Ref.No.27/2011, dated 09.03.2011, of respondent No.2, whereby it has called upon the petitioner and others to remove the alleged encroachments over the road. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioner pleaded that he is the owner of house bearing D.No.8-107 of Machavaram Village, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari District, constructed in the year 1991, after obtaining approval of plan on 26.07.1991 from respondent No.2. It is also his pleaded case that he has purchased house, bearing D.No.8-183, opposite to the above-mentioned house, and that while forming the CC road, the projections of the said house were removed long back. The petitioner also pleaded that respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat has orally informed him that it has received an intimation from respondent No.3 that the Mandal Surveyor was visiting the Village to survey the street, on which, his houses are situated. That accordingly, the Mandal Surveyor has conducted survey on 25.02.2011 and allegedly found that the measurements are as per the FMB and that he has informed the petitioner and others that no further steps will be taken. However, by the impugned notice, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to remove the encroachments within seven days, failing which, action will be taken up for removal of the encroachments by it, as per the provisions of law. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the survey report was furnished to the petitioner nor a prior notice was given to him to put forward his case and therefore, the impugned proceeding is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. After hearing the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the opinion that the impugned proceeding, by which, the petitioner is asked to remove the structures, cannot be sustained because without any prior notice to the petitioner, respondent No.2 should not have come to an unilateral conclusion that he encroached the road and raised constructions thereon. Nothing is deducible from the impugned proceeding that either a copy of the survey report was furnished to the petitioner or a prior notice was given to him to explain his case before concluding that he is in occupation of public road. The law is well settled that if any action prejudicial to the interests of a person is taken, such person is entitled to a prior notice and an opportunity of being heard. As this fair procedure is not followed, the writ petition is disposed of with the following terms: (1) The petitioner and respondent No.2 shall treat the impugned proceeding as show-cause notice; (2) Within one week, respondent No.2 shall supply a copy of the survey report to the petitioner; (3) Within two weeks thereafter, the petitioner shall submit his explanation; (4) After expiry of the said period, respondent No.2 shall consider the petitioner’s explanation, if any submitted, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner; and (5) Until this exercise is completed, respondent No.2 shall not interfere with the petitioner’s possession of the properties in question. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.8324 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th March, 2011 Note: Issue CC in three days. (b/o) VGB