\ '-ii V - APHC010381032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SMS c WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19688 OF 2025 Between: K S R B Gopichand, S/o. Ramaswamy Naidu, aged about 78 years, R/o. 24-1, LS Nagar, MR Palli, Tirupati (Urban), Tirupati District, A.P. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati District. 3. The Joint Collector, Tirupati District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Office, Tirupati Revenue Division, Tirupati District. 5. The Tahsildar, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District. ...Respondents 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 pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.5 in issuing the notice vide Ref A/233/205 dated 16.06.2025 under Section 7 of Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 thereby directing the petitioner to vacate the subject property i.e. an extent of land admeasuring Ac. 0.20 cents in the in Sy.No. 318 of Chandragiri village, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District without furnishing any survey report as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Government of A.P. v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081 and the Hon’ble High Court of A.P in Kadiyala Sudhershan v. Government of A.P, (2013) 5 ALD 212 besides being violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of title/boundary disputes in regard to the petitioners agricultural land and the government land situated in an extent of Ac. 0.20 cents in Sy.No. 318 of Chandragiri village, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District. lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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 the notice vide Ref:A/233/205 dated 16.06.2025 issued by the Respondent No. 5 thereby restraining the Respondent No. 5 from interfering with the subject property admeasuring Ac. 0.20 cents in Sy.No. 318 of Chandragiri village, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SAI PHANI KUMAR REPRESENTING SRI KANDERI CHETHAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010381032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] c WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19688/2025 Between: 1.K S R B GOPICHNAD, S/0, RAMASWAMYNAIDU, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/0. 24-1, LS NAGAR, MR PALLI, TIRUPATI (URBAN), TIRUPATI DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3.THE JOINT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUPATI REVENUE DIVISION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5.THE TAHSILDAR, CHANDRAGIRI MANDAL, TIRUPATI 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 pass an order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.5 in issuing the notice vide Ref.A/233/205 dated 16.06.2025 under Section 7 of Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905 thereby directing the petitioner to vacate the subject property i.e. an extent of land admeasuring Ac. 0.20 cents 2 in Sy.No. 318 of Chandragiri village, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District without furnishing any survey report as illegal, arbitrary, irrational, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the dictum laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Government of A.R v. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081 and the Honble High Court of A.R in Kadiyala Sudhershan v. Government of A.R, (2013) 5 ALD 212 besides being violative of Article 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of title/boundary disputes in regard to the petitioners agricultural land and the government land situated in an extent of Ac. 0.20 cents in Sy.No. 318 of Chandragiri village, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District and pass such lA 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 the notice vide Ref;A/233/205 dated 16.06.2025issued by the Respondent No. 5 thereby restraining the Respondent No. 5 from interfering with the subject property admeasuring Ac. 0.20 cents in Sy.No. 318 of Chandragiri village, Chandragiri Mandal, Tirupati District and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KANDERI CHETHAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri Sai Phani Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri K.Chethan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents 1 to 5. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the absolute owner of an extent of Ac.0-17 cents in Sy.No.330 of Chandragiri Village & Mandal, Tirupati District. The petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 13.11.1980 vide document No.7960/1980. Be that as it may, the 5' Ref.A/233/2025, dated 16.06.2025 under Section 7 of the Madras 3. respondent issued a notice vide Land 3 Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short “the Act”) pointing out that the petitioner encroached Ac.0-20 cents out of Ac.1-70 cents in Sy.No.318 of Chandragiri Village and Mandal and directed the petitioner to submit an explanation. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that invoking the summary procedure by the 5*^ respondent and issuing ex.P.1 notice without conducting any survey is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment reported in Government of A.P., vs. Thummala Krishna RaoV 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader on oral instructions would 5. submit that the 5'^ respondent issued notice under Section 7 of the Act calling the petitioner to submit an explanation. If the petitioner submits an upon explanation along with relevant documents, the 5^^ respondent will consider and pass appropriate orders as per Section 6 of the Act. Learned AGP would further submit that the ratio in Thummala Krishna Rao’s case (referred supra) may not apply to the case at hand at this stage. Consideration: As seen from the material available on record, the 5th respondent issued notice (Ex.P.1) under Section 7 of the Act to the petitioner. The notice indicates that the petitioner has encroached upon an extent of Ac.0-20 cents out of Ac.1-70 cents (Government land - canal) in Sy.No.318 of Chandragiri Village and Mandal. The notice issued under Sec 7 of the Act, at no stretch of imagination, cannot be treated as a final order determining the alleged encroachment made by the petitioner. The petitioner is, in fact, only called upon to submit an explanation. If the petitioner submits an explanation by annexing relevant documents, the 5th respondent-Tahsildar will pass a reasoned order addressing all the objections. In the considered opinion of this court, it is premature to apply the ratio laid down in Thummala Krishna Rao’s case, since the petitioner is yet to 6. AIR 1982 SC 1081 submit an explanation to the Ex.P.1 notice and Section 6 of the Act is yet to be passed by the 5th respondent. 7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner will submit an explanation to the notice (Ex.P.1). a consequential order under the 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is counsel on disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned either side giving liberty to the petitioner to submit an explanation to the notice Ex.P.1 within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by annexing relevant documents by raising proper grounds. Upon receipt of the explanation, the S'” respondent shall consider the objections and provide an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioner. The S'” respondent shall the exercise within six (6) weeks thereafter. Till complete an order is passed, the respondent shall not interfere to an extent of Ac.0-20 cents out of Ac. 1-70 cents in Sy.No.318 of Chandragiri Village and Mandal without following process. No order as to costs. due Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- N NAGAMMA assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1- The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati District. 3. The Joint Collector, Tirupati District. 4. The Revenue Divisional District. 5. The Tahsildar, Chandragiri Mandal 6. One CC to Sri Kanderi Chethan 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue 8. Two CD Copies Secretariat, Velagapudi, Office, Tirupati Revenue Division, Tirupati Tirupati District. Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] TF HIGH COURT DATED;30/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19688 OF 2025 ^ 0 4 SEP 2025 '^iSCtWMllSwIiO. o', STAGE OF ADMISSION, WITHOUT COSTS