■« APHC010381622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY ^ fg TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19281 OF 2025 / \o Between; Annepu Kesava Rao, S/o.Simhadri, Bammidi Village, Kotturu Mandal. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali Revenue Division, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kotturu Mandal, Kotturu, Srikakulam District. 5. The Village Revenue Officer, Bammidi Village, Kotturu Mandal, Srikakulam 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 issue an appropriate writ order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents giving the two Eviction Notices in Rc.No. 163/2025/C, dated 19.07.2025 directing the Petitioner to vacate the subject property within 48 hours from the date of receipt of the said notice, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to in » the A.P.Land Encroachment Act and is violation of principles of natural justice in violation of Art 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and ntly to set aside the two Eviction Notices in Rc.No. 163/2025/C, t9.07.2025 got issued by Respondent No.4. h t r: /^da‘ IA NO; 1 OF 2025 Pelitidn 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 suspend the two Eviction Notices in Rc.No. 163/2025/C, dated 19.07.2025 got issued by Respondent No.4, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; M/S. B SUKAYANA REPRESENTING SRI SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010381622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] c‘ FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19281/2025 Between: 1.ANNEPU KESAVA RAO, S/O.SIMHADRI, BAMMIDI VILLAGE KOTTURU MANDAL. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. SECRETARIAT 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, SRIKAKULAM. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKKALI REVENUE DIVISION, TEKKALI, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, KOTTURU MANDAL, DISTRICT. KOTTURU, SRIKAKULAM 5.THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, BAMMIDI VILLAGE, KOTTURU MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM 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 an appropriate writ order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in giving the two Eviction Notices in Rc.No.163/2025/C, dated 19.07.2025 ¥■ 2 directing the Petitioner to vacate the subject property within 48 hours from the date of receipt of the said notice, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the A.P.Land Encroachment Act and is violation of principles of natural justice in violation of Art 14, 16, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to set aside the two Eviction Notices in Rc.No. 163/2025/C, dated 19.07.2025 got issued by Respondent No.4 and to 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 suspend the two Eviction Notices in Rc.No.163/2025/C, dated 19.07.2025 got issued by Respondent No.4, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner; 1 .SRAVAN KUMAR NAIDANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following; ;;ORDER;; Heard Ms. B.Sukayana, learned counsel representing Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents 1 to 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the owner of Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.37/14 of Bammidi Village, Kotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District, and it is an ancestral property. The 4^^ respondent updated the Record of Rights and issued the Pattadar Pass Book. The petitioner constructed a small shop in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.Nos.90- 5 and 90-1 of Bammidi Village, Kotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District adjacent to the property owned by the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without issuing notice under Section 7 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905, an order under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, was issued to the 3. 3 petitioner vide Rc.No.163/2025/C dated 19.07.2025 (Ex.P1). Learned counsel would submit that in the order under Section 6 impugned in the writ petition, 48 hours were granted to the petitioner to evict the premises, and no reasons were assigned. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would submit that a notice under Section 7 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide Rc.No.163/2025 C dated 27.06.2025, was issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner refused to receive the same. The notice was served on the petitioner per Section 26 of the AP Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, by affixing the same at his last known residence. The petitioner failed to submit an explanation. The petitioner, without availing the remedy, filed the writ petition. 4. Thus, as seen from the order under Section 6 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the proceedings impugned, there is no reference regarding the issuance of notice under Section 7 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and the petitioner’s alleged refusal to receive the notice. Against the order under Section 6 of the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905, an appeal is provided under Section 10 of the Act, within 60 days. However, the 4‘^ respondent directed 48 hours to evict the premises, and the same is impermissible. 5. 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 Pradesh”', sets aside the order under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that the order does not contain any reasons. 6. A learned single judge of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kadiyala Sudershan case (referred supra), held thus: 7. “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 ^2013 (5) ALD 212 w * 4 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.” In the case at hand, as discussed supra, no material is available to substantiate the contention of the respondent authority regarding service of notice under Section 7 of the Act. That apart, giving 48 hours, when an appeal can be filed in 60 days, the authority is making a statutory appeal redundant. 8. Given the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The 9. th order vide Rc.No.163/2025/C dated 19.07.2025 (Ex.P1) issued by the 4 respondent under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act 1905 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the 4'^ respondent. The petitioner shall submit an explanation within 10 days from today regarding the alleged encroachment in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.90-1 of Bammidi Village, Kotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District to the 4*'^ respondent. Thereafter, the 4 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 4 th th 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. Sd/- K.KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// OFFICER SE To, 1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Srikakulam District, Srikakulam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali Revenue Division, Tekkali, Srikakulam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kotturu Mandal, Kotturu, Srikakulam District. 5. The Village Revenue Officer, Bammidi Village, Kotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District. 6. One CC to Sri Sravan Kumar Naidana Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies TF 1 HIGH COURT DATED:25/07/2025 ^^ano5^ i 12 AUG 2025 s , Current Section . ORDER WP NO. 19281 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS