APHC010003722020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Akunuru Tulasilatha The State of Andhra Pradesh and other Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B.S.N.Naidu Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP for Revenue (AP) The Court made the following order: Challenging the action of the 5 petitioner from the land of an extent of Ac.81½ cents in Sy.No.394 situated at Talagadadeevi Revenue Village, Nagayalanga Mandal, Krishna District, the instant writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri B.S.N.Naidu, though video conference, Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. It is contended by the petitioner that she had purchased the subject l from her vendor and has been paying land revenue in respect of the said land IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 335/2020 ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and other ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following order: the action of the 5th respondent in trying to dispossess the an extent of Ac.81½ cents in Sy.No.394 situated at Talagadadeevi Revenue Village, Nagayalanga Mandal, Krishna District, the B.S.N.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing and learned Assistant Government Pleader for appearing for the respondents. It is contended by the petitioner that she had purchased the subject l from her vendor and has been paying land revenue in respect of the said land IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3458] MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA ...Petitioner ...Respondents respondent in trying to dispossess the an extent of Ac.81½ cents in Sy.No.394 situated at Talagadadeevi Revenue Village, Nagayalanga Mandal, Krishna District, the nsel for the petitioner appearing and learned Assistant Government Pleader for It is contended by the petitioner that she had purchased the subject land from her vendor and has been paying land revenue in respect of the said land since then. Before that, her vendor occupied the subject land, paying land revenue. The receipts filed in support of payment of land revenue before the alleged purchase do not reflect the subject Survey No.394. Specifically, documents prior to 2012 do not contain the subject Survey No.394, except for one receipt dated 20.05.2000, which mentions Survey No.394 for an extent of Ac.0.70 cents in the name of one Ramamurthi, said to be the father of the petitioner's vendor. 4. Be that as it may, having regard to the contention of the petitioner that even a land encroacher is entitled to a show-cause notice for eviction, this Court is of the considered view that in compliance with the principles of natural justice, the petitioner should have been put on notice before ordering for eviction, if her possession is found to be unauthorized. 5. In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with the law, if the possession of the petitioner is found to be unauthorized, after issuing notice to the petitioner. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 17.02.2025 BSK THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 335/2020 Date: 17.02.2025 BSK