IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI "^ (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY .THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12977 OF 2025 Between: 1. Sambhani Satyanarayana, S/o. Kanakacharyulu (Late), Aged about 73 years, Occ Business, R/p. Kantabamsuguda Village, Pedalabudu Mandal, Araku Valley Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District. 2. Sambhani Mahesh, S/o. Satyanarayana, Aged major, Occ Business, R/o. Kantabamsuguda Village, Pedalabudu Mandal, Araku Valley Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District. ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl.-Seeretary, Revenue Dept, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Dist. 2. The District Collector, Alluri Seetharamaraju District, Paderu. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Alluri Seetharamaraju District, Paderu. 4. The Tahsildar, Araku Valleyl Araku Valley Village and Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District. 5. The Panchayat Secretary, Pedalabudu Panchayat, Arakuvalley Mandal Alluri Seetharamaraju District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226' of the Constitution of India praying that in the Circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue a Writ or order or orders may or direction more particularly declaring the action of the in the nature of writ of mandamus respondents in threatening to dispossess the one petitioner from their lawful possession in respect of properly inciuding shop in an extent of Ac.0-10 cents (0-05 cents each) situated in Sy.No.B/55, Biock No.31 Kantabamsuguda Village, Araku of Valley Mandal without receiving explanation from the petitioners to the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and without notices issued under section 7 of AP following due process of law and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and also in violation of principles of natural justice apart A of constitution of India and from violation of Article 300- cdnsequently direct the respondents to follow the due process of law by providing opportunity i petitioners to submit their explanation in the interest of justice. of personal hearing to the lA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased (jjfTgQj tj.,g praying that in the circumstances respondents not to proceed further in any manner in dispossessing the petitioners from the Pi^operty in an extent o Ac.0-10 cents (0-05 cents each) situated in Sy.No.B/55, Block No.31 of Kantabamsuguda Village, Araku Valley Mandal. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRh KARANKI YASWANTH Counsel for the Respondents No.1 // to 4: GP FOR REVENUE / 4 . Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI Y KOTESWARA RAO, Standing Counsel for ZPPS, MPPS and Gram Panchayat. The Court made the following Order: 'k: 1 NV,J W.P.No.12977 of 2025 APHC010259522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 12977/2025 Between: Sambhani Satyanarayana and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KARAN KIYASWANTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 NV,J W.P.No.12977 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 to issue a Writ or order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in threatening to dispossess the petitioner from their lawful possession in respect of property including shop in an extent of Ac.0-10 cents (0-05 cents each) situated in Sy.No.B/55, Block No.31 of Kantabamsuguda Village, Araku Valley Mandal without receiving explanation from the petitioners to the notices issued under section 7 of AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and without following due process of law and to declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatoryand also in violation of principles of natural justice apart from violation of Article 300- A of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to follow the due process of law by providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners to submit their explanation in the interest of justice” 3 NV,J W.P.No.12977 of 2025 The case of the petitioners is that, the petitioners’ claims to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land of an extent of Ac.0-10 cents in Sy.No.B/55, Block No.31, Kantabamsuguda Village, Visakhapatnam District. He submits that the 4'*^ respondent issued impugned notice dated 28.05.2025 under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, alleging that the petitioners occupied Government Land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents, each i.e. Ac.0-10 cents in total, out of total extent of Ac. 1-22 cents in Sy.No. 13/55 in Block No.31, Kantabamsuguda Village classified as ‘Road Poramboke’ and called for explanation from the petitioners as to why action shall not be initiated as per the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereafter the Act, 1905). Even though the petitioners are willing to submit detailed explanation to the impugned notice dated 28.04.2025, the 4*^ respondent is not considering the same and threatening to dispossess the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition. 2. 3. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 provides opportunity to the petitioners to offer an explanation within seven days, the 4*'' respondent is not accepting the same and requested this Court to direct the 4“^ respondent to consider the explanation to be submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law even an 4 NV,J W.P.No.12977 of 2025 On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, supported the action of the 4*^ respondent in issuing the impugned notice after determination of the nature of land and occupation/encroachment without any valid permission from the competent authority and also assessed in all respects and requested to dismiss the writ petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader 5. for Revenue and perused the material available on record. The petitioners claim that they were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land for the past 40 years. A Notice dated 28.04.2025 was issued to the petitioners alleging that they were in occupation of government land to an extent of Ac.0.05 cents each, out of total extent of Ac.1-22 cents in Sy.No.13/55 in Block No.31, Kantabamsuguda Village classified as ‘Road Poramboke’, calling for explanation of the petitioners to be submitted within seven days. However, it is contended that even though the petitioners are willing to submit the explanation, the 4**" respondent is not acceptinq the same. 6. As seen from the material bn record including the show-cause notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, the petitioners are admittedly in possession of the property, but their nature of possession is as an encroacher. Apart from that, a notice issued under Section 7 of the Act is only a show-cause notice calling for explanation from the petitioner within seven days as to why they 7. 5 NV,J W.P.No.12977 of 2025 should not be evicted from the property and encroachment should not be removed. But, the only contentidn is that the respondent is not accepting and considering the explanation'Of the petitioners is nothing but contrary to the object of notice under Section 7 Of the Act, apart from deviation to the scheme of the Act. 8. Even assuming for a moment that the petitioners are 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 petitioners, as held in the case Kadiyala Sudershan and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh^ 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 is passed against him. UnlesI 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 petitioners to submit an explanation to the 4*'^ respondent Tahsildar pursuant to the Notice 12013 (6) ALT 42 7 ' 6 /Jls^ NV,J W.P.No.12977 of 2025 dated 28.04.2025, under proper acknowledgment, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the 4*^ respondent shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders within two (02) months thereafter, till then, status quo obtaining as on today in respect of the subject property, shall be maintained by all the parties concerned. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 11. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand 12. closed. Sd/- K J assistant iTgffFcer //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. The PrI.Secretary, Revenue Dept, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur Dist. 2. The District Collector, Alluri Seetharamaraju District, Paderu. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Alluri Seetharamaraju District, Paderu. 4. The Tahsildar, Araku Valley, Araku Valley Village and Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District. 5. The Panchayat Secretary, Pedalabudu Panchayat, Arakuvalley Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District. 6. One CC to SRI. KARANKI YASWANTH Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCS to GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. One CC to Sri Y Koteswara Rao, High Court of Andhra ^ Pradesh.[OPUC] /< 9. Three CD Copies vna \ HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.12977of2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS