THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 31986 of 2011 Date: 05.12.2011 Between: M. Venkat Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri A.S.C. Bose Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3 : GP for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner, who claims to be the owner of Ac.4.92 cents of land enclosed by a compound wall in Survey No. 56/6 of Poosalapadu Village, Prakasam District, ﬁled this Writ Petition with the grievance that Respondent No.3 has issued a direction in the form of a notice to remove the construction raised by him purportedly on government poramboke land within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, with the further observation that if the structures are not removed, the same would be removed without any notice. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that their family which is the owner of the said property is in possession of the same and the compound wall, which was directed to be removed, is in existence for the last 100 years. The main ground on which the impugned proceedings are questioned is that no prior notice and opportunity of being heard is given to the petitioner before being called upon to remove the compound wall. The petitioner has further pleaded that on receipt of the impugned notice, a legal notice was issued to Respondents 2 and 3 on 24.11.2011, but his case has not been considered and that there is no further response from the respondents. The petitioner feels threatened by the action of Respondent No.3. Under Section 98 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994the executive authority is empowered to require the owner or occupier of any building to remove or alter inter alia any encroachment. It is therefore, implied from the said provision that if the encroacher does not remove the encroachment, it is the executive authority, who can remove the same on its own. It is also further implied that before removing encroachment, an opportunity should be given to the alleged encroacher to explain his case as principles of natural justice are inbuilt in this statutory provision. Respondent No.3 has not followed this procedure. As the petitioner has already issued a legal notice after issuance of impugned notice, it would be appropriate if Respondent No.3 considers the case of the petitioner as reﬂected in the legal notice before seeking to enforce the impugned notice. To arrive at a correct decision, Respondent No.3 shall issue a notice of personal hearing to the petitioner. If the petitioner is able to convince Respondent No.3 that he has not made any encroachment, the latter shall drop further action. Conversely, if Respondent No.3 is satisﬁed that the petitioner has encroached upon the government land, he shall pass a fresh order and communicate his decision to the petitioner. The petitioner then is free to avail appropriate remedy in law, if he feels aggrieved by such decision. Till this process is completed, the respondents shall not remove the compound wall in question. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ----------------------------------------- (C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 5th December 2011 ksld