APHC010379982025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19297/2025 Between: 1. KATTREDDY SRI RAMULU, ALIAS CHALAMALASETTY RAMU, S/O PADMANADHAM AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O KORUKOLLU , NEAR VENUGOPALASWAMY TEMPLE, KORUKOLLU VILLAGE, KALIDINDI MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPT SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KALIDINDI MANDAL, KALIDINDI, ELURU DISTRICT. 4 4. THE DISTRICT FISHERIES OFFICER, , ELURU DISTRICT, ELURU. ...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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings Roc.No.520/2025/A dated 16.7.2025 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violation of principles of natural justice and Violation of provisions of Article 14, 21 of Constitution of India and set aside the same further direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession 2 and enjoyment of the petitioners Fish tank to an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents in R.S.No.867-1 out of Ac. 1.83 cents in Korukollu village, Kalidindi Mandal, Eluru District 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 stay of dispossession of the petitioner from his Fish Tank to an extent of Ac. 0.50 cents in 867-1 in Korukollu village, Kalidindi Mandal, Eluru District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V V KOTESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri T.V.V.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Fisheries for the 4th respondent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was granted D-Form Patta vide L.D.No.279/85 dated 27.09.1985 by the then Tahsildar, Kaikalur, in respect of Ac.0.63 cents in R.S.No.865/4 and Ac.0.87 cents in R.S.No.864/5 of Korukollu Village, Kalidindi Mandal, Krishna District. The petitioner’s father owns Ac.0.50 cents in Rs.No.867-1. 3. Be that as it may, notice under Section 7 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide Roc.No.520/2025/A dated 09.04.2025 (Ex.P15) and an order under Section 6 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide Roc.No.520/2025//A dated 16.07.2025 (Ex.P12) were issued to the petitioner 3 on 19.07.2025. Three days were given to the petitioner to evict Ac.0.50 cents in Rs.No.867-1. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that neither an opportunity of explanation nor an opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioner, in pursuance of the notice under Section 7 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide Roc.No.520/2025/A dated 09.04.2025 (Ex.P15). He would also submit that no reasons were assigned in the order passed under Section 6 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide Roc.No.520/2025//A dated 16.07.2025 (Ex.P12). 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that the notice under Section 7 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide Roc.No.520/2025/A dated 09.04.2025 (Ex.P15) was issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to submit an explanation and hence an order under Section 6 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide Roc.No.520/2025//A dated 16.07.2025 (Ex.P12) was passed. He would submit that, without availing a statutory remedy, the petitioner filed the writ petition. 6. 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. 7. 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 1 2013 (5) ALD 212 4 show-cause notice would be rendered nugatory or reduced to an empty formality.” 8. In the case at hand, the authority passed a cyclostyle order under Section 6 of the Act. The authority should have assigned proper reasons. 9. Given the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order vide Roc.No.520/2025//A dated 16.07.2025 (Ex.P12) issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the 3rd respondent. The petitioner shall submit an explanation within 10 days from today, regarding the alleged encroachment in an extent of Ac.0.50 cents in Rs.No.867-1to the 3rd respondent. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent shall conduct an inquiry by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till such time, the 3rd respondent shall not interfere with the petitioner's possession of the property. The 3rd respondent shall complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 25.07.2025 SNI 5 214 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19297/2025 Date: 25.07.2025 SNI