IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMAR (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE ’ PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13341 OF 2025 Between; Pediredia Suryanarayana Pathrudu, S/o Simhachalam, Aged 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o HNo 3-809, Kothasunkarapalem village, H/o Kantakapalli Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its PrI. Secretary to Govt. Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur. 2. District Collector, Vizianagaram District at Vizianagaram. 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram Urban Division. 4. Tahsildar, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a appropriate writ. Order or direction, particularly a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order of the 4th respondent in Rc.Non.138/2025/SA/Dt. 05.2025 dated 07.05.2025, under section 6 of AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in a cyclostat format of section 7 notice without there being any reasoning on the explanation of the petitioner dated 27.03.2025, as illegal, irregular, irrational, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently suspend the order of the 4th respondent in Rc.Non. 138/2025/SA/Dt. 05.2025 dated 07.05.2025. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order of the 4th respondent in Rc.Non. 138/2025/SA/Dt. 05.2025 dated 07.05.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition., Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER 'APHC010268042025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13341 OF 2025 Between: Pediredia Sgryanarayana Pathrudu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.M SOLOMON RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 13341 OF 2025 ORDER:- th The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the order of the 4 respondent in Rc.No.138/2025/SA/Dt. 05.2025, dated 07.05.2025, under Section 6 of A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in a cyclostat format of Section 7 notice without there being any reasoning on the explanation of the petitioner, dated 27.03.2025, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, Revenue for the Respondents. th 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the 4 respondent- issued the impugned notice dated 07.05.2025 directing the petitioner to submit written explanation in respect of the land to an extent of Ac. 0.78 cents in Sy.No.142 of Kantakapalli Revenue Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner submitted his written explanation dated 27.03.2025 requesting to consider the same and no coercive steps be taken to evict him from the possession of the subject property. As there is a threat of dispossessing the petitioner from the subject property, the present Writ Petition came to be filed. 4. The Respondent No.4 being a quasi judicial authority, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, has directly issued cyclostat formate of Section 7 notice, in the considered opinion of this Court is nothing but deprivation of principles of natural justice and principle of Fair and Reasonableness on the part of the respondents. 5. On perusal of the record, the petitioner had submitted his explanation pursuant to the impugned notice and there is no whisper about the explanation. As could be seen from the impugned notice, it is noted that there are no reasons, as required, while passing the order of eviction under Section 6 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by the Respondent No.4. 6. It is further observed that it is settled preposition of law that notice was issued under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and if any explanation is submitted, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents to consider same and pass appropriate orders thereon. Without doing so, issuing any other order, is contrary to the principles of natural justice and principle of fair and reasonableness on the part of the public authority. once 7. In the instant case, it is found that the petitioner was issued notice under Section 7 of Act, 1905 on 07.05.2025. For which, the petitioner submitted explanation on 27.03.2025. Therefore, the 4‘^ respondent is under the statutory obligation to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. Without doing so again issuing notice under Section 7 as well as order under Section 6 of Act, 1905 is deviation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. 8. In-view of the reasons stated above, the impugned notice dated 07.05.2025 issued by the 4*^ respondent is hereby set aside. However, the 4*^ respondent is hereby directed to consider the explanation of the petitioner dated 27.03.2025. If the same is not available, the petitioner is hereby directed to submit the explanation afresh, within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. After such submission, the 4‘^ respondent is directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, after having clear demarcation between the subject land and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. If the petitioner fails to submit the explanation within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the 4*'^ respondent is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. Meanwhile, the respondent authorities are directed not to dispossess or not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in respect of the subject property. i 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. A*s a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- U.SRI DEVI EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ASSISTAN SECTION OFFICER To, VefagapudTGunfuT^^^'^^ Department, Secretariat 2. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District at Vizianagaram. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram Urban Division. 4. The Tahsildar, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 5. One CC to $ri M Solomon Raju Advocate [OPUC^ 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies 1 TF i ’ ’ '•J •% HIGH ^gOrT TF DATED:09/05/2025 TL ORDER WP.No.13341 2025 C 12)llN?n?S 3^. Current aecuon ."yf- 8» «Oi a DISPOSING OF the: W.P., WITHOUT COSTS