THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.9560 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner, along with his associates, claims to have purchased land to an extent of Acs.15.00 situated in Survey No.250/1- B of Vemulapally Village, H/o Dwarapudi Panchayat, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District. He states that he submitted an application to the Dwarapudi Gram Panchayat-second respondent on 25.02.2002, seeking permission for construction of godowns in the said land. As the second respondent has neither granted permission nor rejected the application, the petitioner claims to have started construction of the godowns under deemed provisions and after completion of the same, he claims to have handed over them to the State Warehousing Corporation, Kakinada, Food Corporation of India, Kakinada and District Food Corporation of India, Kakinada vide letter, dated 10.05.2002. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent issued notice, dated 10.05.2002, stating that he has constructed godowns and occupied the house sites sanctioned by the Social Welfare Department, and directed not to proceed with further construction. It is the specific case of the petitioner that having purchased the subject land, he constructed 9 rach 5,000 Mts. Capacity godowns, and about Acs.8.00 of land is still vacant and therefore, there is no need for him to encroach the house sites belonging to the Social Welfare Department, as alleged by the second respondent in the notice, dated 10.05.2002. Now, it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondents have come to the spot on 16.05.2002 and tried to demolish the godowns, without there being justifiable reason and without following due process of law. Hence, the present writ petition. This Court, on 21.05.2002 while issuing Rule nisi, directed the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land or the structures, except by following due process of law. At the same time, it was also observed that the petitioner shall not undertake any further construction. Seeking to vacate the said interim order, dated 21.05.2002, the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer filed W.V.M.P.No.2189 of 2002, along with counter. In the counter, while generally denying the allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that one Sri Buddaraju Bala Gandhi Raju and eight others purchased the subject land and constructed nine godowns with capacity of 5,000 metric tons. That on verification, it was noticed that for construction of part of compound wall of one godown and office building, the landowners have occupied 12 house sites allotted under Social Welfare Land Acquisition Scheme covering plot Nos.1 to 5 (full extent) and 6 to 12 (part) admeasuring Ac.0.28 cents. That a Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the petitioner on 15.04.2002, and in turn the petitioner executed Power of Attorney in favour of Sri Tula Vishnu Murthy on 09.05.2002 to safeguard and maintain the above said godowns with labour society, namely, Sri Vajayaranga FCI Loading and Unloading Union for a period of two years. It is categorically stated in the counter that the Dwarapudi Gram Panchayat has not given any approval or permission for construction of the godowns and as the petitioner has encroached the house sites, notice under Section 7 of the A.P.Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued calling upon him to show-cause as to why action should not be taken against the encroachments, and at that stage, the petitioner approached this Court and obtained interim orders. It is also stated in the counter that pursuant to the notice under Section 7 of the Act, the Power of Attorney holder had submitted a representation on 20.05.2002 stating that his power of Attorney is out of station and requested to grant fifteen days’ time to give suitable reply, and as the explanation of the Power of Attorney holder was not satisfactory, notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.05.2002. It is categorically stated that the respondents are following the procedure prescribed under law and sought to dismiss the writ petition i n limini, since against the notices issued under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, the petitioner has got an effective alternative remedy of appeal under Section 10 of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development appearing for the respondents. From a perusal of the record, it would become amply clear that the petitioner made constructions without obtaining valid permission from the Dwarapudi Gram Panchayat. Though the petitioner states that he made constructions, based on the deemed permission, he has not stated as to under what provision of law, permission to construct is deemed to have been granted. The petitioner, apart from making construction without obtaining permission from the Gram Panchayat, it is the case of the third respondent-Mandal Revenue Officer, that the petitioner has encroached the house sites belonging to the Social Welfare Department, and therefore, they issued notices under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act, calling upon him to show cause why he shall not be evicted. Though the petitioner disputed that he has encroached the land belonging to the Social Welfare Department, he admitted that he has not submitted his explanation to the show cause notices. Whether the petitioner has made constructions by encroaching the house sites belonging to the Social Welfare Department or not, is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into by this Court in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The law is well settled that no writ petition is maintainable against a mere show cause notice, and the remedy of the petitioner is to submit his explanation thereto. The petitioner, apart from having the opportunity of submitting his explanation, has also the remedy of appeal against the impugned notices, but the petitioner neither submitted his explanation nor availed the remedy of appeal, and instead filed the present writ petition, contending that the respondents are trying to interfere with his possession without following due process of law, which contention cannot be accepted. The petitioner having not shown any reason, for bypassing the remedy of appeal, the present writ petition cannot be entertained and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:13.04.2010 VGB