::1:: APHC010146682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7520/2025 Between: Yelakala Lakshmana Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE ::2:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA W.P.No.7520 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of the writ of MANDAMUS declaring the Order/Notice vide Rc No.163/2023/S.A, dated 12 03 2025 issued by the Respondent No.4 under Section 6 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 thereby directing the Petitioner herein to vacate the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.10½ Cents covered in Sy.No.14/1 of Budarayavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District, as illegal, arbitrary unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 besides being violative of Principles of Natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and/or pass.” 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has received a notice U/s 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 on 21.02.2025 and immediately, the petitioner herein submitted a detailed and comprehensive reply dated 26.02.2025 to the Respondent No.4 substantiating that the petitioner herein has not encroached the subject land and the petitioner established SP Cashews factory in Sy.No.14-4 adjacent to the Sy.No.14-1 (subject land). ::3:: 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in long possession and enjoyment of the property and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed by exercising power under Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905. When the petitioner is in settled possession of the property, the remedy open to the respondents is to approach the Civil Court in view of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in “Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao1”. Instead of approaching the Civil Court to establish the title by the 4th respondent, he issued notice under Section 7 of the Madras Act, invoking summary procedure to evict the petitioner from the land, requested to allow the writ petition. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that a notice dated 12.03.2025 was issued under Section 7 of the Madras Act (Act 03 of 1905), and requested to pass appropriate orders. In fact, the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is in force, but instead of following the procedure under the A.P.Land Encroachment 1 AIR 1982 SC 1081 ::4:: Act, notice was issued under the Madras Act 03 of 1905, which is not applicable to the present alleged encroachment. 5. On perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that no specific date and time is fixed for submitting explanation in terms of Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, hence, notice is incomplete. On this ground, the notice dated 12.03.2025 is liable to be set aside. However, when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, it is the obligation of the State to approach the competent Civil Court and obtain relief for eviction of the petitioner or removal of objectionable encroachments. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in “Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao” (referred supra). In the said judgment, the Apex Court candidly held that the Government, in summary proceedings, cannot unilaterally decide its own title over the property, and their remedy is only to approach the competent Civil Court seeking declaration of title. If the said principle is applied to the present facts of the case, remedy open to the 4th respondent to approach the competent Civil Court to establish the title and for recovery of the possession. Hence, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in “Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao” ::5:: (referred supra). Therefore, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed, except by following the law laid down by the Apex Court in “Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao” (referred supra) and “Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu2 (Dead) by L.Rs.2”. 6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 24.03.2025 krk 2 2004 (1) SCC 769 ::6:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 45 W.P.No.7520 of 2025 24.03.2025 krk