IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26616 of 2010 Between: Girajala Seshaiah & others. ..... Petitioners AND Gram Panchayat, Hukumpet, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District rep., by its Panchayat Secretary & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : None Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri G. Elisha Counsel for respondents 2-5: Sri G. Krishna Murthy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26616 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the notice issued by respondent No.1 directing the petitioners to vacate their respective sites in Sy.Nos.74/1C and 74/1D of Hukumpeta Gram Panchayat, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for the petitioners. I have heard Sri G. Elisha, learned Standing counsel respondent No.1 and the learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 to 5. In their affidavit, the petitioners have stated that they have purchased the residential plots in the abovementioned survey numbers under registered sale deeds from the original owners, that they applied for sanction of building plan, which was approved by respondent No.1 vide proceedings dated 10.02.2007 after collecting a sum of Rs.62,100/- for approval and that respondent No.1 has sanctioned the building plan. In the present writ petition the petitioners felt aggrieved by the notice issued by respondent No.1 calling upon them to vacate the plots within seven days failing which criminal proceedings will be initiated under the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1964 (for short, “the Act”). In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated that one Sri Simhadri Satyanarayana is the owner of the land in R.S.Nos.74/1C and 74/1D of Hukumpeta village and that he applied for layout sanction. It is further stated that after due verification, layout was sanctioned by the Director of Town and Country Planning vide LP. No.624/1985 according to which an extent of 1333.33 square yards is shown as open space for communal purpose apart from roads and drains and that the open space automatically vests in the Gram Panchayat. It is the further case of respondent No.1 that the original owner having been divested of the title over the said land had no right to sell the same to the petitioners and that therefore the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioners, who are in occupation of the said property contrary to the sanctioned plan. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 also filed a counter affidavit, wherein they stated that they are the adjacent plot owners and that as the open space, which was earmarked for park and other amenities, was illegally purchased by the petitioners, a representation was made to respondent No.1 upon which it has issued the impugned notice. Under Section 98 of the Act respondent No.1 is entitled to remove the encroachments over the property vested in it. If the petitioners have purchased the land, which is left for open space under the sanctioned lay out, respondent No.1 is certainly entitled to evict them. However, before resorting to such an action, principles of natural justice require that the petitioners are put on notice and given an opportunity of submitting their explanation. As this procedure is not followed, the impugned notice is quashed. Respondent No.1 is given liberty to issue a notice to the petitioners calling upon their objections against the proposed eviction. If such objections are filed within the stipulated time, the same shall be considered and appropriate order is passed. After expiry of the prescribed time for receiving the objections respondent No.1 is entitled to pass appropriate order considering the objections, if any filed by the petitioners. Needless to say that if the petitioners failed to file such objections, respondent No.1 is entitled to pass an order of eviction against them. On the premises as above, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.33985 of 2010 and WVMP.No.6059 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 25.01.2011 ES