APHC010354702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18187/2025 Between: 1. KOTHAPALLI SURYAPRAKASHRAO, S/O. NAGESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. GANGINENIPALEM VILLAGE, G.KONDURU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.I 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE COMPOUND, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA REVENUE DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE, G.KONDURU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. ...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 direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing eviction notice vide proceedings under R.C.B. No. 318/2025, dated 27.05.2025 under Section 6 of The Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905, by invoking summary proceedings without considering the petitioners objections 2 and without considering the petitioners long possession from his predecessors as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, irrational, against to the principal of natural justice and in violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of constitution of India and contrary to the ratio laid down by the Honble Apex court in Govt.of A.P. Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao (AIR 1982 SC 1081), and Honble High court of A.P. in Karnati Lakshmidevamma VS. The State of A.P. and Ors (W.P. No. 16449 of 2025) consequently set aside the eviction notice R.C.B. No. 318/2025, dated 27.05.2025, issued by the 4th respondent under Section 6 of The Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and 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 to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps in respect of the petitioner’s RCC Building to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.59, Ganginenipalem Village, G.Konduru Mandal, NTR District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SARANU PHANI TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri Saranu Phani Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 4. 2. A notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide R.C.B.318/2025 dated 26.04.2025 (Ex.P2) was issued by the 4th respondent to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 09.06.2025 (Ex.P3). Without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an order under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, was passed vide R.C.B.318/2025 dated 27.05.2025 (Ex.P1). 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 4th respondent failed to consider the explanation dated 09.06.2025 (Ex.P3), submitted by the petitioner and passed a stereotype order without assigning any reasons. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that the 4th respondent considered the explanation and passed the order under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. He would also submit that an appeal would lie under Section 10 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905. However, without availing remedy, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 5. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding notice issued under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide R.C.B.318/2025 dated 27.05.2025 (Ex.P1), and the explanation submitted dated 09.06.2025 (Ex.P3). 6. A perusal of Ex.P1 does not indicate consideration of explanation submitted by the petitioner, Ex.P3 and reasons. An order passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, should contain reasons. 7. This Court in W.P.No.13839 of 2022 dated 06.05.2022, while reiterating the observations in Kadiyala Sudershan and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh1, sets aside the order under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that the order does not contain any reasons. 8. A learned single judge of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kadiyala Sudershan case (referred supra), held thus: “From the scheme of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that the notice of eviction prescribed under Section 6 of the Act, which is akin to a decree, needs to be supported by a reasoned order comparable to a judgment. Otherwise, Section 7 of the Act providing for issuance of a show-cause notice would be rendered nugatory or reduced to an empty formality.” 1 2013 (5) ALD 212 4 9. In the case at hand, neither order impugned contains consideration of the explanation nor reasons. 10. Given the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order vide R.C.B.318/2025 dated 27.05.2025 (Ex.P1) issued by the 4th respondent under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the 4th respondent to pass an appropriate order after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 09.06.2025 (Ex.P3) and, if necessary, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till such time, the 4th respondent shall not interfere with the petitioner's possession of the property. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 21.07.2025 SNI 5 261 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18187/2025 Date: 21.07.2025 SNI