THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.599 of 2011 Dated 21st January, 2011 Between: Medarametla Subbarattamma and another …Petitioners And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri G. Elisha, standing counsel for Panchayat Raj The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the impugned proceedings issued by respondent No.4 as being illegal and arbitrary. According to the petitioners, they were granted house site pattas by the revenue department in pursuance of which they have raised constructions over the plots assigned to them. However, though by the impugned proceedings (which are styled as notices), respondent No.4 has called upon the petitioners to remove the structures raised by them and that failing which action will be taken under Section 268 (2) (xvii) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, for removal of the structures at the cost of the petitioners. Respondent No.4 in the said proceedings has referred to the report of respondent No.3, wherein it was purportedly found that the petitioners have occupied a stream and raised constructions thereon. The main ground of attack of the impugned proceedings by the petitioners is that respondent No.4 has failed to issue a notice and opportunity of being heard to them before issuing the impugned proceedings based on the ex parte report submitted by respondent No.3. After hearing Sri G. Elisha, learned standing counsel for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondent No.4, I find force in the plea of the petitioners. Even assuming that the petitioners are found in occupation of a stream, principles of natural justice require that a prior notice is given calling upon them to show-cause as to why their structures should not be removed and they are not evicted. After considering the explanations, if any, filed by the petitioners, an appropriate order needs to be passed. Though respondent No.4 has styled the impugned proceedings as notices, in effect, they are in the nature of final orders, which adversely affect the interests of the petitioners. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction that the impugned notices shall be treated as show-cause notices. The petitioners are permitted to file their explanations within a period of three weeks from today. If such explanations are filed, respondent No.4 shall consider the same along with the material that may be filed by the petitioners, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioners. If the petitioners feel aggrieved by such order, they shall be free to avail their remedies. Till this exercise is completed, respondent No.4 is restrained from interfering with the petitioners’ possession and enjoyment of their properties. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.744 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st January, 2011 GHN