HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.23511, 23515, 23524, 23532, 23533, 23534, 23772 and 23823 of 2008 Date : 27.09.2011 Between : Anasuri Tanukulamma & others. …..Petitioners And Gram Panchayat, Ramanayyapet, rep. by its Executive Officer. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.23511, 23515, 23524, 23532, 23533, 23534, 23772 and 23823 of 2008 COMMON ORDER : In all these writ petitions, the notices issued by the respondent-Grampanchayat on similar set of allegations, are challenged and as such, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as arise in W.P.No.23511 of 2008. The petitioner claims that she is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 216.7 sq. yards in the plot bearing No.23 in Sy.No.74/5B, situated in Muralidhar Nagar of Ramanayyapet Gram panchayat in Kakinada Rural Mandal of East Godavari District. It is stated that the said plot was purchased by the late husband of the petitioner from ‘East Godavari District Police Employees Co-operative Building Society’. The impugned notice, dated 09.10.2008, is issued to the petitioner alleging that she has encroached upon the irrigation canal bund, which is adjacent to her property and has constructed a compound wall without permission from the Gram Panchayat. By the impugned notice, petitioner was directed to remove the said compound wall and submit her written explanation informing the same. It is the allegation of the petitioner that she made constructions within her plot area and there is no encroachment, but without there being any demarcation of the irrigation canal bund, straightaway the impugned notice is issued by the respondent-Grampanchayat for removal of her compound wall. Mainly, it is the allegation of the petitioner that the impugned notice is issued without giving any opportunity to her and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. At the stage of admission, this Court granted status quo orders on 30th of October 2008. It was further observed in the said order that the respondent- Grampanchayat shall get the land in question demarcated by the revenue authorities. Though the writ petition is of 2008, no counter affidavit is filed by the Grampanchayat and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Grampanchayat also reports no instructions as to whether the land was demarcated or not as per the observations made by this Court in the earlier order. I have also perused the copy of notice, dated 09.10.2008. It is clear from the recitals of the said notice that it was not preceded by any prior notice giving the opportunity of explaining the allegations made against the petitioner. When the petitioner is denying the alleged encroachment, respondents ought to have given an opportunity before ordering for demolition of the compound wall constructed by the petitioner. If the petitioner has encroached upon the canal bund area and constructed the compound wall illegally, it is always open for the respondent-Grampanchayat to get the canal bund area demarcated by addressing the competent authorities, and after such demarcation, if it is found that constructions are made on the canal bund, further steps can be taken by giving notice, but the Grampanchayat is not empowered to straightaway issue notice asking the petitioner to remove the compound wall on the allegation of encroachment, which is being denied by the petitioner. As much as the respondent-Grampanchayat has not filed counter affidavit disputing the allegation of petitioners that the impugned notices are not preceded by any show cause notice, I deem it appropriate to set aside the notices impugned in all these writ petitions, permitting the respondent-Grampanchayat to demarcate the land which is covered by the irrigation canal bund, and after such demarcation, if it is found that constructions are made by the petitioners by encroaching upon the canal bund area or the property of the Grampanchayat, it is open for the respondent-Grampanchayat to take further steps in accordance with law, for removal of such constructions after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Subject to the above directions, all the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 27th September 2011 ajr