APHC010006352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [0] MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 375/2025 Between: 1. LAKKIREDDY RAMAMOHANA REDDY,, S/O LAKKIREDDYJAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS H.NO. 5/31, BOVILLAVARI PALLE BADVEL MANDAL. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUEDEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 3. TAHSILDAR, BADVEL MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BADVEL MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GOPU ROHITH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri G. Rohith, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Land Acquisition, Stamps & Registration. 2. The Writ Petitioner is aggrieved by the direction given by the Official Respondents to vacate from the subject land. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Official Respondents have issued the Notice under Section 6 of the A.P Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short the ‘Act) on 22.11.2024 (Ex.P.3). The Writ Petitioner has preferred an Appeal under Section 11 of the Act on 09.12.2024. It is the grievance of the Writ Petitioner that, the Writ Petitioner was asked to vacate from the subject land, failing which, he shall be evicted by using force, if necessary. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that despite the fact that the Appeal has been filed on 09.12.2024 along with the Application seeking stay, neither of them have been numbered so far. 3. Section 10 of the Act provides for Appeal against the Orders of the Tahsildar or the Deputy Tahsildar. Section 11 of the Act provides the limitation of 60 days for preferring an Appeal. Admittedly, the Order/Notice was passed on 22.11.2024 and the Writ Petitioner has diligently preferred the statutory Appeal before the District Collector on 09.12.2024, though the Notice issued under Section 6 of the Act would incorrectly state that the aggrieved party may prefer an Appeal within 30 days. Whereas, the statute provides the limitation period of 60 days for preferring an Appeal under Section 11 of the Act. 4. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Order passed by the Tahsildar dated 22.11.2024, which indicates that the Appeal lies before the Revenue Divisional Officer against the Order within 30 days. Learned Counsel for the 3 Writ Petitioner would submit that the Writ Petitioner, not being aware of the statutory provisions, has blindly followed the direction of the Tahsildar in his Order dated 22.11.2024 that the Appeal shall be filed within 30 days and has preferred the Appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer (Respondent No.4) on 09.12.2024. On the face of the said Order, it appears to the Court that the Tahsildar is not even aware of the statutory provisions under which he has issued the Notice. 5. It goes without saying that the Writ Petitioner should be given protection at least during the operation of statutory period of limitation. This apart, the Appellant Authority has also not numbered the Appeal so far. It is the opinion of this Court that the statutory Authority cannot prescribe a limitation period on their own which is lesser than what is prescribed under the statute. Therefore, the grant of 30 days time for filing an Appeal is clearly unsustainable in law. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Order dated 22.11.2024 is unsustainable in law. The said Order bearing Ref.No.A/351/2024 dated 22.11.2024 (Ex.P.3) is set aside. The Tahsildar, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District (Respondent No.3) is directed to consider the explanation given by the Writ Petitioner and pass Orders afresh, objectively and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the statute, as indicated above. 7. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 8.Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 06.01.2025 JKS 4 48 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 375 OF 2025 06.01.2025 JKS