IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6033 of 2002 Between: Sri A. Sankarachary, S/o. Munuswami Chari, aged 52 years, R/o.D.No.13-127 & 128, Gangammagudi Street, Gudur Town, Nellore District. … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Gudur Municipality, Gudue, Nellore District. … Respondent Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the notice issued by the respondent under Sections 192 & 193 of A.P. Municipalities Act stating that the petitioner encroached government land and directing to remove the constructions as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent not to remove the constructions made by the petitioner in S.No.119 & 121/2 situated at Gangammagudi Street, Gudur Town. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. P. Gangarami Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Sri S. Nageswar Reddy (S.C. for Municipalities) The court made the following Order: The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice issued by the respondent under Sections 192 and 193 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 directing him to remove the encroachments alleged to have been made by him in the premises bearing ward No.13, Gangammagudi Street, Gudur Municipality, Nellore District as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Earlier, notice dated 04-03-2002 was issued to the petitioner alleging that he has encroached upon an extent of 235 Sq. yards of land belonging to the Government and was asked to remove the encroachments. The petitioner questioned the said notice in W.P.No.4159 of 2002. This court, by order dated 16-03- 2002, while disposing of the said writ petition, directed the respondent to treat the notice dated 04-03-2002 as a show-cause notice and directed the petitioner to file his explanation. This court further directed the Commissioner, Gudur Municipality to examine the explanation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. In view of the orders of this court, the petitioner filed explanation dated 16-03-2002, to the notice dated 04-03-2002, which is filed in the material papers along with the writ petition. In his explanation to the notice dated 04-03-2002, the petitioner has stated that he purchased an extent of 45 ankanams and 45 Sq. ft. equal to 305.231 Sq. mts., from the earlier owner Sri Ravula Ravindra by registered sale deed dated 09-11-1998, an extent of 39 ankanams and 63 Sq. ft. equal to 266.73 Sq. mts., from Sri Ravula Narayana Rao by registered sale deed dated 09-09-1998 and further an extent of 378 Sq. ft equal to 35.122 Sq. mts from Sri Tirumuru Anasuyamma and others by registered sale deed dated 04-12-1999. While denying the allegations of encroachment, he requested for a personal hearing, so as to enable him to produce documentary evidence on the date of hearing. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of filing a detailed explanation giving all the details, without giving him any opportunity of hearing, the impugned notice is issued directing him to remove the encroachments alleged to have been made within forty-eight hours from the date of receipt of the said notice. 4. This court, while admitting the writ petition, by order dated 02-04-2002 passed interim orders staying the impugned notice and the said order has been continuing all along. Though the writ petition is of the year 2002, no counter affidavit is filed and there is also no representation on behalf of the respondent. 5. A perusal of the impugned notice makes it clear that the Commissioner, Gudur Municipality, has not considered the issue, in the light of the directions of this court in the order dated 16-03- 2002, by taking into account the explanation of the petitioner. The said notice indicates that it is issued based on the information of the Government and by referring to the survey report. There is no finding with reference to the explanation filed by the petitioner and various details furnished by him with regard to purchase of land by registered sale deeds and his denial of encroachments. No counter affidavit is also filed refuting the allegations of the petitioner. 6. As much as the impugned notice is issued without considering the explanation of the petitioner, contrary to the earlier directions of this court, the same is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the respondent for consideration afresh. The respondent shall re-consider the matter by taking into account the explanation of the petitioner and by giving him an opportunity of hearing. If the petitioner wants to rely on any other documents in support of his case, it is open to him to file the same at the time of hearing of the matter. The respondent shall notify the date of hearing of the matter in advance to the petitioner by way registered notice. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. April 7, 2009 MRR