THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25250 of 2010 Dated 09th February, 2011 Between: Lanka Vamshidhar Reddy …Petitioner And The District Collector (Panchayat Raj Wing) Warangal District at Warangal and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri P.Raghavender Reddy Counsel for respondent No.3: Sri P.Radhive Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice, dated 01.10.2010, of respondent No.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Raghavender Reddy, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent No.2, and Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent No.3, who got herself impleaded in the writ petition. The petitioner has raised a compound wall around the land in Survey No.4, which is being used for construction of a function hall. There obviously seems to be a dispute over a part of the said land between the petitioner and respondent No.3, with respect to which, O.S.No.84 of 2010 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahaboobabad, filed by respondent No.3, is pending. By the impugned notice, respondent No.2 called upon the petitioner to remove the compound wall on the ground that he has raised the said wall by encroaching a part of 30’ road. This writ petition is filed mainly on two grounds, namely, that the permission granted in favour of the petitioner for raising compound wall has not been cancelled and that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before issuing the impugned proceedings. From a perusal of the impugned proceedings, it is evident that respondent No.2 has given a specific finding that the petitioner has encroached a part of 30’ road and raised construction thereon. The plea of the petitioner that no prior notice was issued before issuing the impugned proceedings was not controverted by any of the respondents. Though the proceeding assailed in this writ petition is styled as a notice, in reality, it is in the nature of direction to the petitioner to remove the structure. The principles of natural justice require that before concluding that the petitioner has encroached the road, a show-cause notice shall be issued to him calling for his explanation against the proposed action and in the event, the petitioner fails to offer satisfactory explanation, further action for removal of the structure requires to be taken. As respondent No.2 failed to follow this procedure, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the same is set aside with liberty to respondent No.2 to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner calling for his explanation. On receiving explanation, if any, filed by the petitioner or no explanation is filed by the petitioner, within the time stipulated, respondent No.2 shall pass an order. Before taking further action, respondent No.2 shall also issue a notice to respondent No.3 inviting her views on the aspect relating to raising of structures by the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, the interim order, dated 05.10.2010, granted by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.32264 of 2010, shall stand vacated and W.P.M.P.No.32264 of 2010 and W.V.M.P.No.5238 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 09th February, 2011 VGB