APHC010305082025 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: 15391/2025 Between: 1. YALLA NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O.7-38, RAJAVOMMANGI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, RAJAVOMMANGI MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 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/8-211/2025, dated 20.05.2025, without considering the fact that the family of the petitioner has been residing in the property in Door No.7-38 (old Door No.1-6A84) in Assessment No.738 of Rajavommangi Village and Mandal, Kakinada District, since 120 years, as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequentially, direct the respondents more particularly, the 3 respondent not to interfere with the property of the petitioner, in Door No.7-38 (old Door No.1-6A84) in Assessment No.738 of Rajavommangi Village and Mandal, Kakinada District by suspending the notice in reference A/8- 21 1/2025, dated 20.05.2025 and to pass IA 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 pleased to direct the respondents more particularly, the 3rd respondent not to interfere with the property of the petitioner in Door No.7-38 (old Door No.1- 6A84) in Assessment No.738 of Rajavommangi Village and Mandal, Kakinada District by suspending the notice in reference A/8-211/2025, dated 20.05.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15391 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/8-211/2025, dated 20.05.2025, without considering the fact that the family of the petitioner has been residing in the property in Door No.7-38 (old Door No.1-6A84) in Assessment No.738 of Rajavommangi Village and Mandal, Kakinada District, since 120 years, as illegal, arbitrary and also oppose to Article 300-A 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/8-211/2025, dated 20.05.2025 and to pass...” Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that since the facts and circumstances of this Case are similar to that of W.P.No.15389 of 2025, he prays to pass similar order in this Writ Petition also. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue does not refute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Relevant paragraph of the order passed in W.P.No.15389 of 2025 is extracted hereunder: “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. 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- Khunti1 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 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”. 1 W.P.(C) No.7783 of 2011 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. 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. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner by conducting detailed enquiry 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.” In view of the same, for the reasons alike in the aforesaid order, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to consider the explanation of the petitioner by conducting detailed enquiry 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. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to attach a copy of the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.15389 of 2025 to this order. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 25.06.2025 M M KK KK 298 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 15391 of 2025 25.06.2025 M K K