IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6982 OF 2007 Between: Mannur Padmavathamma ..... PETITIONER AND The Municipal Commissioner ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6982 OF 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is owner of premises bearing No.5/127-H, A & B, Nunevaripalli Road, Rajampet Nagara Panchayat. On 07.02.2006, a notice was issued to the husband of the petitioner, under Sections 192 and 193 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965, (for short, “the Act”), alleging that he has encroached an extent of 63.80 Square Meters of land belonging to Municipality. He was required to remove the encroachment within seven days. The husband of the petitioner submitted reply, dated 14.02.2006, asserting title over the land and enclosing the sale deeds and link documents. However, another notice, dated 22.02.2007, making reference to the earlier notice, dated 07.02.2006, was issued with same allegations. The petitioner challenges the notice, dated 22.02.2007. Respondent has not filed any counter affidavit. Heard Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent herein i.e., Nagara Panchayat, Rajampet, issued notice, dated 07.02.2006, under Sections 192 and 193 of the Act, on the assumption that the husband of the petitioner encroached the property owned by the Nagara Panchayat. In his reply, dated 14.02.2006, the husband of the petitioner made a detailed account of the manner in which he is enjoying the property. The sale deeds and link documents were also enclosed. The Nagara Panchayat was expected to pass orders on that. However, one year thereafter, a fresh notice was issued to the petitioner herein, that too, by making reference to the earlier notice. When reference was made to the notice, dated 07.02.2006, it was incumbent upon the Nagara Panchayat to make a reference to the explanation submitted in reply thereto. The impugned notice, dated 22.02.2007, was issued almost in mechanical manner, without application of mind. Even now, the respondent can consider the representation submitted by the husband of the petitioner in reply to notice, dated 07.02.2006. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned notice, dated 22.02.2007, is set aside. It is directed that the respondent shall be entitled to take further action only after considering the explanation submitted in reply to the notice, dated 07.02.2006. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J March 31, 2011 MD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6982 OF 2007 March 31, 2011