ORDER : Heard Sri S. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, learned Government Pleader for Home and Sri Vinod K Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 and 7 and perused the material available on record. 2. With the consent of both parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. This Writ Petition is filed against the action of the respondents, particularly, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in contemplating to demolish some portion of the petitioner’s residential house and encroach into his vacant site shown as ‘ABCDE’ in the rough sketch in front of his residential house in order to form the CC road and issuing notice dated Nil by respondent No.7 on 14.12.2021 directing to remove the portion of his residential house within two days as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for a consequential direction to respondent Nos. 4 to 7 not to demolish and interfere with the petitioner’s possession over the said house and vacant site. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land to an extent of 1298 square feet, which includes two portions of his house presently bearing Door No.7-95 ( Old Door No.9/96) situated at Kothacheruvu Revenue Village and Mandal of Ananthapuram District. Respondent No.7 issued Notice without any date, which was served on the petitioner on 14.12.2021, wherein it is stated that the petitioner has encroached the Gram Panchayat land and constructed house and it is obstructing to lay a CC road and as such, directed the petitioner to remove the said structures within two days, failing which, the Gram Panchayat will remove those structures officially. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is stated in the said Notice that the Revenue Surveyor conducted survey and made markings over the said land, but no notice was issued to the petitioner to participate in the survey. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to set aside the impugned notice by allowing the Writ Petition. 6. As such, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to set aside the impugned notice by allowing the Writ Petition. 6. On the other hand, Sri Vinod K Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat, submits that the Gram Panchayat conducted survey over the subject land with the Revenue surveyor and it is found that the petitioner has encroached the Gram Panchayat land and constructed house including water pampu. As per the markings of the Revenue Surveyor, unless the obstructions are removed, it is not possible to lay CC road by the Gram Panchayat. Under these circumstances, the impugned Notice is issued to the petitioner and as such, there is no any irregularity or illegality in issuing the impugned Notice. 7. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, particularly, the impugned Notice, which was served on the petitioner on 14.12.2021, it appears that the petitioner is directed to remove the structures within two days, failing which, officially the Gram Panchayat will remove the said structures. It is also mentioned in the impugned Notice that as per the Survey conducted by the Revenue Surveyor, markings are made and as per the those markings and measurements, the construction made by the petitioner is obstructing to lay a CC road. 8. A careful examination of the impugned notice, in our view, the said Notice is unsustainable on two grounds: the first ground is while conducting survey by the Revenue Surveyor, no notice was issued to the petitioner to participate in the said survey. It appears, behind the back of the petitioner, the said survey was conducted. Second ground is without giving opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his version, respondent No.7 issued the impugned proceedings, though it is styled as notice, it is an order directing the petitioner to remove the structures. It is settled law that without giving opportunity to the aggrieved person, issuing order directly is in violation of the principle of natural justice. In the present case, respondent No.7 committed these two mistakes. As such, in our view, the impugned Notice is unsustainable under law. 9. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned Notice issued by respondent No.7, which was served on the petitioner on 14.12.2021, is liable to be set aside. 10. In the present case, respondent No.7 committed these two mistakes. As such, in our view, the impugned Notice is unsustainable under law. 9. For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned Notice issued by respondent No.7, which was served on the petitioner on 14.12.2021, is liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the Impugned Notice issued by respondent No.7 which was served on the petitioner on 14.12.2021. It is made it clear that respondent No.7 is at liberty to take steps to conduct survey with the Mandal Surveyor afresh after giving notice to the petitioner to participate in the survey for taking further action against the petitioner’s property. It is also made it clear that the respondents are not entitled to proceed with the property of the petitioner without following due process of law. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.