1 NV,J W.P.No.8894 of 2025 APHC010173492025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8894/2025 Between: B Muni Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 NV,J W.P.No.8894 of 2025 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief: “To pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice in ROC.375 dt.01.04.2025 issued by the 4th respondent under section under section 7 of the A.P Land Encroachment Act, 1905, without following the due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently set- aside the same and direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the land of the petitioner admeasuring an extent 2,548 Sq.Feet, in Sy.No.219 of Vijayapuram Village, Vijapauram Mandal, Chittoor District 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring an extent of 2548 sq.ft in Sy.No.219 of Vijayapuram Village & Mandal, Chittoor District, having purchased the same by registered sale deed for valuable consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He submits that the 4th respondent issued impugned notice dated 01.04.2025 under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, alleging that the petitioner occupied Government Land to an extent of 2 feet in Sy.No.218, classified as ‘Kunta’ and called for explanation from the petitioner as to why action shall not be initiated as per the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Even though the petitioner is willing to submit detailed explanation to the impugned notice 3 NV,J W.P.No.8894 of 2025 dated 01.04.2025, the 4th respondent is not considering the same and threatening to dispossess the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 provides an opportunity to the petitioner to offer an explanation within seven days, the 4th respondent is not accepting the same and requested this Court to direct the 4th respondent to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, supported the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned notice after determination of the nature of land and occupation without any valid permission from the competent authority and also assessed in all respects and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner claims that he had purchased the subject property in the year 1980 and thereafter, he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. A Notice dated 01.04.2025 was issued to the petitioner alleging that he was in occupation of government land of an extent of 2 feet, calling for explanation of the petitioner to be submitted by 07.04.2025. However, it is 4 NV,J W.P.No.8894 of 2025 contended that even though the petitioner is willing to submit the explanation, the 4th respondent is not accepting the same. 7. As seen from the material on record including the show-cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, the petitioner is admittedly in possession of the property, but his possession is an encroacher. Apart from that, a notice issued under Section 7 of the Act is only a show-cause notice calling for explanation of the petitioner on or before 07.04.2025 as to why he should not be evicted from the property and encroachment should not be removed. But, the only contention is that the 4th respondent is not accepting and considering the explanation of the petitioner. 8. Even assuming for a moment that this petitioner is an encroacher, who is allegedly in unauthorized possession of the property, still after issuing notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, the respondent/ Tahsildar is required to pass detailed order after affording opportunity reasonably to the petitioner, as held in the case Kadiyala Sudershan and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh1. 9. Section 7 of the Act envisages a show-cause notice pre- supposes that the competent authority has to deal with the explanation/objections filed by the person in possession of the land. Unless a reasoned order is passed, the person in occupation of the land does not know as to why an order of eviction 1 1 2013 (6) ALT 42 5 NV,J W.P.No.8894 of 2025 is passed against him. Unless the order contains reasons, the appellate authority will not be in a position to examine the validity or otherwise of the order and decide the appeal. 10. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit explanation to the 4th respondent Tahsildar pursuant to the Notice dated ROC 375 dated 01.04.2025, under proper acknowledgment, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the 4th respondent shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within two (02) months thereafter. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. 11. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 12. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:03.04.2025 SP 6 NV,J W.P.No.8894 of 2025 116 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 8894/2025 Date:03.04.2025 W SP