JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. This Writ Appeal is filed assailing the order, dated 22.02.2021, passed in W.P.No.4156 of 2021, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the impugned notice, dated 17.02.2021, as illegal and improper, was dismissed. 2. The factual matrix of the case is as under : The petitioners, along with the family members, claim to have been residing in the premises bearing Assessment No.779 of Atmakur Village, Mangalagiri Mandal since 1989, by raising asbestos roof in a land admeasuring 113.67 square meters. It is said that the petitioners are homeless poor family, eking out their livelihood through daily labour. While things stood thus, the Village Panchayat Officer, Atmakur, issued R.O.C.No.01/2021, dated 27.01.2021, directing the petitioners to vacate the Government land, encroached upon by the petitioners, within a period of 7 days. It was further informed that if the said premises is not vacated within a period of seven days, legal action will be initiated against them. The said notice also indicates encroachment on to panchayat road. 3. Challenging the said notice, Writ Petition No. 2607 of 2021 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of on 04.02.2021, directing the petitioners to treat the notice, dated 27.01.2021, as a show cause notice and submit written explanation, with all legal and factual pleas, within a week from the date of receipt of the order and further directed the 2nd respondent herein to pass a reasoned order within a week thereafter. Till such time, the 2nd respondent was restrained from taking any forcible action. Pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioners state that they had submitted their explanation on 08-02-2021, explaining the factual and legal position. Without considering the explanation in accordance with law, the 2nd respondent is said to have issued the impugned notice demanding eviction of the petitioners from the subject land. Challenging the same, Writ Petition No.4156 of 2021 came to be filed. 4. After considering the rival arguments advanced and taking into consideration the pleas taken, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition at the admission stage, but, however, granted two weeks time to the petitioners to vacate the said premises. Assailing the said order, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 5. 4. After considering the rival arguments advanced and taking into consideration the pleas taken, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition at the admission stage, but, however, granted two weeks time to the petitioners to vacate the said premises. Assailing the said order, the present Writ Appeal is filed. 5. Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, mainly submits that the action of the authorities in seeking to evict the appellants without giving any opportunity of personal hearing is bad in law. He further submits that when the material on record shows that the appellants are in possession of the properties since 1989, eviction could not have been ordered as a matter of course. While admitting that the appellants have no title or documents showing ownership of the property, but, having regard to the fact that they are in possession since long time and as assessment number was also issued, to which they have been paying house tax and water tax since 1989, submits that the authorities should have paid suitable compensation, while ordering eviction of the appellants. He further submits that since they are homeless poor people, the Government ought to have issued pattas under “Pedalandariki Illu” scheme. In view of the above, he would submit that the order impugned in the Writ Appeal is bad in law. 6. Sri I.Koti Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Panchayat, strongly opposed the same, contending that the procedure, as required under law, has been followed pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. He further pleads that on 27.01.2020 itself a notice was given to the appellants, which was challenged in W.P.No.2607 of 2021. Pursuant to the orders passed, the appellants gave an explanation, which was considered in accordance with law and thereafter, the order impugned in the writ petition came to be passed. Hence, he pleads that the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that no opportunity was given to the appellants, while issuing the impugned notice, is incorrect. He further pleads that though the appellants are now seeking personal hearing, but such a request was never made in the representations made. Hence, submits that the order under challenge warrants no interference. 7. In order to appreciate the rival arguments advanced it would be just and proper to refer to the impugned notice. He further pleads that though the appellants are now seeking personal hearing, but such a request was never made in the representations made. Hence, submits that the order under challenge warrants no interference. 7. In order to appreciate the rival arguments advanced it would be just and proper to refer to the impugned notice. A perusal of the proceedings dated 17.02.2021 goes to show that it was a letter addressed by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, to the appellants, wherein it was mentioned that, as per their records, no licence or prior permission has been obtained from the Gram Panchayat and the panchayat road was also encroached upon. The constructions made therein were without any permission. Hence, the appellants were asked to vacate the premises, as the said premises is required for road widening. 8. The main plank of the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the order came to be passed without giving an opportunity of personal hearing. But, a perusal of the explanation submitted by the appellants, pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in W.P.No.2607 of 2021, does not anywhere indicate seeking personal hearing. It only speaks about the appellants having no property, except the place where they are living and that the family will be thrown on to streets, if asked to vacate. The explanation also speaks about providing allotment of house sites and payment of compensation in terms of Section 98(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, ‘the Act’). Therefore, the appellants herein never sought for personal hearing, at any earlier point of time. 9. Coming to the plea that the appellants are entitled for payment of compensation, as prescribed under Section 98(2) of the Act, the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition itself indicate that Section 98(2) of the Act envisages, if an encroachment is in existence for sufficient period of time, to give such encroachment a prescriptive title under law of limitation, the Gram Panchayat is under obligation to pay reasonable compensation to all such persons who would suffer damages while removing the same. Though the learned counsel for the appellants tried to contend that they are in possession of the property since 1989, but appellants failed to trace their possession, with certainty, with valid document or lawful source. Though the learned counsel for the appellants tried to contend that they are in possession of the property since 1989, but appellants failed to trace their possession, with certainty, with valid document or lawful source. On the other hand, the appellants in their representations categorically stated that they have no other alternative accommodation and sought for allotment of an alternate house site. 10. The fact that the appellants have no title or right over the property is not in dispute and their claim is only on the ground that they are in possession since 1989, which, as held earlier, was without any valid legal documents. In view of the above, the plea of the appellants that they have to be suitably compensated in terms of Section 98(2) of the Act cannot be accepted. Therefore, the action of the authorities in taking steps for their eviction cannot be faulted. However, if appellants are without any shelter or they are landless poor persons, as claimed, they can make an appropriate application before the concerned authorities in which case the same may be dealt with in accordance with law. 11. With the above observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.