THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition Nos.20596 & 20760 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: 1 Since both the Writ Petitions are filed questioning the orders passed by the first respondent in both the Writ Petitions vide proceedings No.404/K5.Pts/2007 dated 22.09.2007, these two Writ Petitions are heard together and are disposed of this common order. 2 For the sake of convenience, I refer to the parties as they are arrayed in W.P.No.20760 of 2007. 3 The petitioner applied to the Gram Panchayat, Awalpur for construction of a cattle shed on 22.04.2007. Thereafter, pursuant to his application the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution on 14.05.2007 and consequently permission was granted for construction of cattle shed in the old premises bearing D.No.2-83. It appears, a complaint was made before the respondents about the construction undertaken by the petitioner alleging that he made construction of the cattle shed by encroaching on the public road. Based upon the same, the District Collector, Panchayat Wing, Adilabad called for a report from the Revenue Divisional Officer and the Divisional Panchayat Officer and basing on such reports, the impugned order is passed for removal of the constructions made by the petitioner and also the compound wall constructed by the petitioner in W.P.No.20596 of 2007. 4 In these Writ Petitions, it is the case of the petitioners that there was no encroachment and that these are the old constructions inherited by the petitioners from their ancestors. It is submitted that the constructions were made by taking due permission from the Gram Panchayat and according to the sanctioned plan only and in spite of the same, without giving any opportunity to the petitioners, the impugned orders have been passed. 5 There is a counter affidavit filed by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Adilabad. In the counter, denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is submitted that though the petitioners are owners of the property in question, but they made constructions by encroaching on the public road. In that view of the matter and in view of the complaint lodged about such illegal constructions, after conducting enquiries by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Divisional Panchayat Officer and basing on their reports only the impugned orders have been passed. 6 Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I have perused the impugned proceedings and also the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. 7 In the impugned order, there is no indication of giving fair opportunity and notice to the petitioners. It appears based on the reports sent by the Revenue Divisional Officer and Divisional Panchayat Officer, the District Collector has passed the impugned order for removal of the structures raised by the petitioners within a period of three days. Section 98 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 prescribes that the executive authority of the gram panchayat is empowered to order removal of encroachments by notice in writing. Section 98(2) of the Act contemplates for payment of some compensation to every person who suffer damages by the removal or alteration of the same if the owner or occupier of the buildings proves that any such projection, encroachment or obstruction has existed for a period sufficient under the law of limitation to give any person a prescriptive title thereto or that it was proved that such constructions are made with due permission of the gram panchayat. Though the said power is conferred on the executive authority only, it is not known how the District Collector has invoked this power and passed the impugned order. At the same time, it is also to be noticed that the allegation of the petitioners that the impugned order is not preceded by any notice and opportunity to them is not denied. There is also no indication of giving any prior notice or opportunity to the petitioners in the impugned proceedings. 8 In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it is not followed by principles of natural justice. If the petitioners are pleading that the constructions were made in the sheds owned by them earlier also, unless giving an opportunity of hearing, the respondents should not have recorded any finding of encroachment by the petitioners. 9 For the aforesaid reasons, as this court is of the view that the impugned proceedings No.404/K5.Pts/2007 dated 22.09.2007 are passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, they are hereby quashed and the Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. However, it is made clear that if there are any encroachments by the petitioners on the public property, this order will not preclude the executive authority to take steps in accordance with law. No order as to costs. --------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 08.11.2011 Kvsn