APHC010354722025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 18931/2025 Between: 1. VARAGALA ANOK, S/O. JOHN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. GANGINENIPALEM VILLAGE, G.KONDURU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 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 SRS,J W.P.No.18931 of 2025 27.05,2025 under Section 6 of The Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905, by invoking summary proceedings without considering the petitioners objections and without considering the petitioners long possession from his predecessors and without having any right to interfere in the title/boundaries disputes 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 Podduturi Vasantha Reddy VS. Estate Officer, Airports Authority of India, N.A.D. (MANU/AP/0454/2009) and 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 such 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 may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps in respect of the petitioner’s RCC Building in Ganginenipalem Village, G.Konduru Mandal, NTR District, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such 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 S. Phani Teja, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri G. Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for respondents 1 to 4. Page 3 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.18931 of 2025 2. A notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide Ex.P2, was issued to the petitioner and others. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 09.06.2025 (Ex.P3). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an order under Section 6 of the Act was passed by respondent No.4 on 27.05.2025 (Ex.P1). Learned counsel would also submit that respondent No.4 neither provided an opportunity for a hearing nor considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.4 passed the order by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. He would also submit that the petitioner, without availing the alternative remedy provided under Section 10 of the Act, approached this Court. 5. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Act on 26.04.2025 (Ex.P2); submitting the explanation by the petitioner and thereafter, passing an order under Section 6 of the Act. A perusal of the order, respondent No.4, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the order impugned. 6. The Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kadiyala Sudhershan v. Government of Andhra Pradesh1, observed as under: “A person in possession of the Government land is liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Act. The Act has laid down the procedure for evicting such person. As a first step towards this direction, a show-cause notice under Section 7 of the Act requires to be 1 2013 (5) ALD 212 SRS,J W.P.No.18931 of 2025 given to the person in occupation of the land. After receiving the notice, an order needs to be passed under Section 6 of the Act. If the competent authority is satisfied that the person in possession of the land is liable to the evicted, he has to issue a notice in the prescribed form. Though the provisions of Section 6 of the Act do not in express terms enjoin on the competent authority to pass a speaking order, the very fact that Section 7 of the Act envisages a show-cause notice pre- supposes that the competent authority has to deal with the explanation/objections filed by the person in possession of the land. Unless a reasoned order is passed, the person in occupation of the land does not know as to why an order of eviction is passed against him. Further, an appeal under Section 10 of the Act is envisaged by the Act. Unless the order contains reasons, the appellate authority will not be in a position to examine the validity or otherwise of the order and decide the appeal. From the scheme of the Act, I am 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.” 7. In the case at hand, Ex.P1 notice does not reveal the consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Hence, the notice impugned is liable to be set aside. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The notice vide R.C.B.318/2025, dated 27.05.2025 (Ex.P1) issued by the Tahsildar, G. Konduru Mandal, is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.4. The 4th Respondent shall consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner vide Ex.P3, by affording an opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order, strictly as per the Act. Till an order is SRS,J W.P.No.18931 of 2025 passed, respondent No.4 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 : 25.07.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.No.18931 of 2025 247 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.18931 OF 2025 Date : 24.07.2025 TVN