State Can't Pass Adverse Order Directing Removal Of Construction Without Issuing 'Prior' Show Cause Notice: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that authorities cannot issue a notice directing removal of constructions without first issuing a show cause notice and affording the affected person an opportunity of hearing. [2026 LiveLaw (AP) 148]

Observing that not issuing notice is contrary to the principles of natural justice, the Court set aside the impugned notice while leaving it open to the authorities to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati observed:

"The first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as 'audi alteram partem' rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle.

It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play."

The petitioner approached the High Court challenging a notice issued by the Irrigation Department directing him to remove constructions raised in property measuring Ac.0.02 cents (97 square yards). According to the notice, the constructions were causing obstruction to the flow of water and were required to be removed within seven days, failing which the authorities would remove them in accordance with law.

Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that he had been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property for several years, where there existed a small residential house and a petty shop from which he earned his livelihood. He argued that the impugned notice neither contained complete details nor the boundaries of the property and had been issued without any prior show cause notice or opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice. 

The respondents submitted that if the Court was inclined to set aside the notice, liberty may be granted to the authorities to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law. 

Examining the impugned notice, the High Court observed that though it was styled as a notice, it virtually directed the petitioner to remove the constructions within seven days.

It further noted “the said notice does not speak anything about prior issuance of any show cause notice to the petitioner seeking explanation. Issuing the impugned notice containing such a direction, without issuing any prior show cause notice or affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, is unsustainable under law”.

The Court noted that a notice proposing adverse action must be precise and unambiguous, adequately inform the affected person of the case against him, and provide sufficient opportunity to submit a representation. Since the impugned notice had been issued in clear violation of these requirements, it was ex facie illegal and liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned notice.

However, it clarified that the respondent authorities were at liberty to initiate appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law after issuing a show cause notice and affording him an opportunity of hearing.

Case Title: K.G. Venkateswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8338 of 2026

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ponnada Sree Vyas

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AP) 148