APHC010305152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15389/2025 Between: Pathala Sathibabu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE NV, J W.P.No.15389 of 2025 Dated: 25.06.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15389 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing notice under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905 to evict the petitioner in notice in reference A/8214/2025 dated 20 05 2025 without considering the fact that the family of the petitioner has been residing in the property in Door No 1146 in Assessment No 1146 of Rajavommangi Village and Mandal Kakinada District since 120 years as illegal arbitrary and also oppose to Article 300A of the Constitution of India consequentially direct the respondents more particularly the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the property of the petitioner by suspending the notice in reference A/8 214/2025 dated 20.05.2025 and to pass such” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 3. The claim of the petitioner herein is that the petitioner is in the possession and enjoyment of the subject house property situated in Door No.11-46 in Assessment No.1146 of Rajavommangi Village and Mandal, Kakinada District and his predecessors since 120 years. 4. He further submits that in the earlier occasion, the respondents are claiming that the subject land in Survey No.11/5 is a Government land. The NV, J W.P.No.15389 of 2025 Dated: 25.06.2025 said claim was considered by this Court in W.P.No.891 of 2012, wherein, the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “Therefore, without pronouncing anything on the merits, the Writ Petition is allowed. This Court is, however, making it clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from taking action as required under law and by following due process.” 5. Even though this Court specifically directed the respondents to follow due process of law, which means that the respondents shall invoke the jurisdiction of Civil Court to evict the petitioner from the subject land who is in possession of subject land. 6. In furtherance, the 3rd respondent herein issued notice under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dated 20.05.2025 and accordingly, on 17.06.2025, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the notice issued by the 3rd respondent, by way of registered post. He further submits that without considering the explanation and without conducting any enquiry about the long standing position of the property, the respondents are resorting to evict the petitioner under Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 which is contrary to the settled preposition of law. 7. On the other hand, Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, furnished written instructions submitted by the 3rd respondent herein, wherein, it is stated that: NV, J W.P.No.15389 of 2025 Dated: 25.06.2025 “In pursuance of the above instructions and upon field verification, it has been observed that R.S.No.11/5 an extent of Ac.1.77 cents classified as Government Poramboke and recorded as “Kankaragutta sthalam (Gravel or Rocky Mound”. The present Writ Petitioner, Sri Patha Sathibabu, S/o Tatabbail, who belongs to a Non-Tribal community, has encroached upon Government land in Survey No.11/5 of Rajavommangi Village, which falls under the Scheduled Area. It is further submitted, as per the provisions applicable to Scheduled Areas, Non-Tribal have no right or entitlement over Government lands located within such notified regions. Upon further verification of records, it is noticed that the present Writ Petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No.891 of 2012 before the Hon’ble High Court on the same subject land, alleging that the respondents were attempting to dispossess the petitioner from the said land without following due process of law. In the year 2022, the Hon’ble High Court was issued following order: “The Writ Petition is allowed as the required due process is not followed. This court is however, making it clear that this order will not preclude the respondents from taking action as required under law and by following the due process”. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue further submits that the subject land is Government land situated within the notified scheduled area and further reiterated that being a non-tribal community the petitioner has no right or entitlement over the subject land situated within the notified scheduled area. The notice issued under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act is in compliance of the order of this Court only. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right over the property and since the petitioner submitted explanation, the same would be considered and will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. NV, J W.P.No.15389 of 2025 Dated: 25.06.2025 9. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsels and also on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that though the petitioner is claiming that himself and his predecessors have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land since 120 years, no documents are filed to substantiate the long standing possession of the property except filing the property tax receipts of the year 2025 and Electricity charges receipt of the year 2025. Further, it is observed that the petitioner also submitted his explanation to the notice, stating that, the petitioner and his predecessors have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property since 120 years. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he cannot be evicted under Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, without detailed enquiry lacks merits and contrary to the scheme of the Act 1 of 1959 and Amendments Act 1972. 10. It is further observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of High Court of Jharkhand passed in Ramesh Nath Mishra and another vs. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Khunti, P.O and P.S. Khunti, District-Khunti 1 and the relevant para is extracted hereunder: “It is further settled that long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save and except by filing a suit before the competent Court of Civil 1 W.P.(C) No.7783 of 2011 NV, J W.P.No.15389 of 2025 Dated: 25.06.2025 Jurisdiction, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramayan Yadav & Ors Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in (2013) 3 PLJR 533”. 11. On considering the ratio of the Judgment supra, which is applicable to the facts in hand, since the petitioner herein is non-tribal and the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue that since the subject encroachment situated within the scheduled area by non-tribal, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any title and right over the property should be considered and also sustainable in view of the object of the Act 1959 and Amendment Act 1972, a nontribal cannot hold or vested with any rights on the land in Scheduled area. 12. Having regard to the reasons as noted above and by considering the submissions of both the learned counsel as explained, the petitioner being a non-tribal cannot be permitted either to hold the Land or to confer any title or vested rights in his favour even after conducting detailed enquiry due to his long standing possession in the absence of any title or evidence of possession or rights before the effect Act 1 of 1959 and amendment Act 1972. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner is contrary to the object of the Act. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that the respondent shall resort to initiate civil proceedings for eviction of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner by conducting detailed enquiry NV, J W.P.No.15389 of 2025 Dated: 25.06.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date: 26.06.2025 M M KK KK NV, J W.P.No.15389 of 2025 Dated: 25.06.2025 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No: 15389 of 2025 Dated: 25.06.2025 M M KK KK 69 NV, J W.P.No.15389 of 2025 Dated: 25.06.2025