IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO:8188 of 2002 Between: Smt.V.Lakshmi Kanthamma W/o. Shri Hamsakumar Reddy, R/o. Devarapalem, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND gram Panchayat, Rep by its Panchayat Secretary Podalakuru, Nellore District, .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent:MS. CH.VEDAVANI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a writ of mandamus to set aside notice, dated 12.04.2002 issued by the Panchayat Secretary of the respondent. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Vedavani, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner is the owner of the premises situated in Survey No.164 of Podalakur Village. She let out the said premises to third parties, who are running shops in the name and style of M/s.Manjula Sweets, M/s.Subbulu Chicken and Pakodi Centre and M/s.Mahesh Audio and Video Centre. The respondent issued the impugned notice, a reading of which shows that in pursuance of the orders of the I- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore and other concerned oﬃcers including the Special Oﬃcer of Ravuru, the occupants shall remove the structures, which were constructed by encroaching into the place belonging to the Gram Panchayat, within one week from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which the structures will be removed by the employees of the respondent. This notice is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the respondent has not issued a prior notice and has not provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent. Though the impugned proceedings are styled as a notice, it is in the nature of a ﬁnal order. This order undoubtedly aﬀects the interests of the petitioner. The law is well settled that before any action, which results in adverse civil consequences, is taken, the person, who is likely to be aﬀected by such an action, is entitled to a notice and an opportunity of hearing. (See STATE OF ORISSA v. DR. (MISS) BINAPANI DEVI AND OTHERS [1] , MANEKA GANDHI v. UNION OF INDIA [2] and SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA [3]). Since neither the impugned proceedings show that a prior notice was given to the petitioner or the tenants nor any counter-aﬃdavit is ﬁled raising such plea, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are quashed with liberty to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings and pass order after complying with the principles of natural justice, in the light of the observations made hereinabove. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st OCTOBER, 2008. kvni [1] AIR 1967 SC 1269 [2] AIR 1978 SC 597 [3] AIR 1981 SC 818