ORDER : VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…..pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents especially the 13 th respondent in issuing the impugned notice vide RC.No.31/2025 dated 03-06-2025 to me, apparently at the instructions of the 4 th, 8 th and 11 th respondents, without specifying the extent and description (Survey No. etc.,) of the alleged encroachments, and action of the Respondent Nos.8, 11 and 13 in directing me to remove the alleged „illegal encroachment? within seven (7) days and threatening to demolish the building and action of the 13 th respondent in trying to demolish part of the commercial building „PVP Complex? situated in D.No.7- 61, 7-62 and 7-63 Nehru Circle, Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Sathya Sai District, admeasuring Ac.0.095 cents (456 sq.yds) situated in Sy. No.447-3, without issuing proper notice and without providing any opportunity of hearing, and demolition of staircase of PVP Complex, on 27-07-2025 (4PM onwards) and 28-07-2025 till 1.30 AM), without considering the oral objections of the petitioner, even without bothering to look into the documents of the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal, highhanded, without jurisdiction, and unconstitutional and violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and blatant violation of the procedure prescribed by under law, and against the well settled principles of natural justice, and consequentially set aside the notice bearing R.C.No.31/2025 dated 03-06-2025, and pass…..” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the property bearing D.No.7-61, 7-62 & 7-63, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.095 cents situated in Sy.No.447-3 of Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Sathya Sai District. The said land was acquired by the petitioner through succession from his father vide partition deed bearing Doc.No.776/2019, dated 12.03.2019. Prior to that, in the year 2007, the petitioner's father had constructed a commercial complex under the name and style of "PVP Complex" after obtaining a building approval plan bearing BAP.No.09/2005 and P.R.No.223, dated 21.11.2005, from the Gram Panchayat. Since then, the petitioner has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the subject property. Prior to that, in the year 2007, the petitioner's father had constructed a commercial complex under the name and style of "PVP Complex" after obtaining a building approval plan bearing BAP.No.09/2005 and P.R.No.223, dated 21.11.2005, from the Gram Panchayat. Since then, the petitioner has been in continuous and peaceful possession of the subject property. However, the 13 th respondent issued a notice vide R.C.No.31/2025, dated 03.06.2025, directing the petitioner to remove the construction within seven (07) days, alleging that the said construction was made by an encroachment. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.13 and 14 had previously carried out the demarcation of encroachments along the R & B main road, during which no portion of the petitioner’s property was marked or identified as an encroachment. Contrary to those earlier demarcations, now the respondent Gram Panchayat issued the impugned notice dated 03.06.2025, directing the petitioner to remove the construction over and above the alleged encroachment within seven (07) days, failing which steps/action would be initiated. Notably, the petitioner’s structure had never been marked as an encroachment, and therefore the petitioner, under the bona fide belief that no explanation was required, as such, he did not respond to the said notice. While things stood thus, to the surprise of the petitioner, on 27.07.2025, the respondents demolished a portion of the staircase of the petitioner's building, treating that as an encroachment without any fresh marking, notice, or hearing. Hence, the Writ Petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat submits that a notice dated 03.06.2025 was issued by the Gram Panchayat clearly indicating that the petitioner has encroached a portion of the R & B main road and carried out construction in deviation of the approved building plan sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat. 6. He further submits that the petitioner was duly served with the notice dated 03.06.2025 but failed to submit any explanation. Subsequently, another show-cause notice dated 25.07.2025 was also issued to the petitioner, to which also he did not prefer to submit any explanation. 7. It is further reiterated that the Gram Panchayat, in coordination with the Assistant Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Department, Puttaparthy, jointly identified the encroachments vide Letter No.03062025/AEE R&B/PTP/2025-26, dated 05.06.2025. Subsequently, another show-cause notice dated 25.07.2025 was also issued to the petitioner, to which also he did not prefer to submit any explanation. 7. It is further reiterated that the Gram Panchayat, in coordination with the Assistant Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Department, Puttaparthy, jointly identified the encroachments vide Letter No.03062025/AEE R&B/PTP/2025-26, dated 05.06.2025. As per the list annexed to the said proceedings, the petitioner’s name is also included among 125 individuals who were identified as encroachers with respect to the R & B main road margin in Kothacheruvu. 8. Upon considering the submissions made by both learned counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the subject property, as described above in his affidavit, is admittedly owned by the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner was granted building permission for the construction of a residential building consisting of ground plus two upper floors (G+2). 9. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the demarcation and identification of encroachments in Kothacheruvu Village, the petitioner’s building was not marked or identified as an encroachment is contrary to the facts and also to the joint report and proceedings dated 05.06.2025. However, this contention is contradicted by the letter dated 05.06.2025 issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Roads & Buildings Section, Puttaparthy, wherein the petitioner’s name is clearly included in the list of 125 individuals, who were identified as encroachers in relation to the R & B main road, Kothacheruvu. 10. It is further observed that even after the receipt of the notices dated 25.05.2025 and 03.06.2025, the petitioner did not choose to submit any explanation or representation to substantiate his claim that the construction in question was not made by an encroachment. In the absence of any such explanation, the respondent Gram Panchayat proceeded and demolished a portion of the petitioner’s building bottom staircase as evidenced by the photographs filed by the petitioner. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, the petitioner is hereby directed to submit a detailed explanation to the notice dated 03.06.2025 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, the petitioner is hereby directed to submit a detailed explanation to the notice dated 03.06.2025 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. After such submission, the respondent Gram Panchayat shall conduct survey and demarcate the petitioner’s property and R & B road margin in the presence of the petitioner after following the due process of law as contemplated under the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and dispose of the petitioner’s representation, after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and other stake holders, if any, within a period of two (02) months thereafter. 12. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to take any steps or not to demolish further in respect of the petitioner’s subject property. 13. The learned Standing Counsel for the Gram Panchayat is directed to inform the order of this Court to the respondent-Gram Panchayat. 14. In the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.