APHC010381012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA RE:DDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19424 OF Between: 1. Somavarapu Prsauna, W/o. Srinivasulu Reddy, Age 35 Nandivayi Village Podalakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District 2. Somavarapu Sridhar Reddy, S/o. Ramana Reddy, Age 45 Nandivayi Village Podalakuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District years, R/o. years, R/o. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principa Secretary Revenue Department Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, at Nellore 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nef ore District 4. The Tahsildar, Podalakur Mandal Podalakur, SPSFl Nellore District ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice issued b/ the 4th in Rc. B.No. 149/2025 dated 15.07.2025 under Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905 without with a view to evict the petitioners from the from the the High Court may be one in the respondent section 6 of the Andhra passing any reasoned order land admeasuring Ac. 0.66 cents in Sy. No. 49/3 of Nandivayi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal, arbitrary, malafidy, ultra-vires, contrary to the procedure established by law, contrary to the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and set aside the notice issued by the 4th respondent in Rc.B.No. 149/2025 dated 15.07.2025 under section 6 of the /^ndhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905, in the interest of justice. 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 direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from tie land admeasuring Ac. 0.66 cents in Sy. No. 49/3 of Nandivayi Village, Pocalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District by suspending the notice issued by tie 4th respondent in Rc.B.No. 149/2025 dated 15.07.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010381012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PI?.ADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] Ti '.I FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF J JLY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA RECIDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19424/2025 Between: l.SOMAVARAPU PRSAUNA, W/0. SRINIVASULU REDDY AGE 35 YEARS, R/0. NANDIVAYI VILLAGE PODALAKURJ MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 2.. SOMAVARAPU SRIDHAR REDDY, , S/0. RAMAN/x REDDY AGE 45 YEARS, R/0. NANDIVAYI VILLAGE PODALAKUR.J MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRET/vRIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORI" DISTRICT, AT NELLORE 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 4.THE TAHSILDAR, PODALAKUR MANDAL PODALAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT ...=IESPONDENT(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 topleased to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly. Page 2 of 5 SRS,J W.P.No.19424 of 2025 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice issued by the 4th respondent in Rc. B.No. 149/2025 dated 15.07.2025 urder section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905 without passing any reasoned order with a view to evict the petitioners from the from th-s land admeasuring Ac. 0.66 cents in Sy. No. 49/3 of Nandivayi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District as illegal, one arbitrary, malafidy, ultra-vites, contrary to the procedure established by law, contrary to the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and set aside the notice issued by the 4th respondent in Rc.B.No. 149/2025 dated 15.07.2025 under section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905, in the interest of justice and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents not to evict the petitioners from the land admeasuring Ac. 0.66 cents in Sy. No. 49/3 of Nandivay Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District by suspending the notice issued by the 4th respondent in Rc.B.No. 149/2025 dated 15.07.2025 pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B.V. Satyanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents. 2. A notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachmeni Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued by respondent No.4 vide R.C.B. 149/2025 dated 23.06.2025 (Ex.P2), pointing out encroachment of land to an extent of Ac.0-66 cents in survey No.49/3, Nandivayi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore SRS,J W.P.No.19424 of 2025 District. The petitioner submitted an explanation dated 03.07.2025 (Ex.P3). However, without considering the explanation submitted l)y the petitioner, an order under Section 6 of the Act, was passed vide R.D.B.149/2025 dated 15.07.2025 (Ex.P1). Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that without considering the explanation (Ex.P3) and assigning reasons, the impugned order, under Section 6 of the Act, was passed. 3. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.4 considered the petitioner’s explanation and passed the order under Section 6 of the Act. He woulc also submit that an appeal would lie under Section 10 of the Act. However, without availing remedy, the petitioner filed this writ petition. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Act, submission of explanation by the petitioner and passing an order under Section 6 of the Act vide R.C.B.149 /2025 dated 15.07.2025 (Ex.P1). 5. 6. A perusal of Ex.PI would reveal neither consideratic n of the explanation submitted by the petitioner under Ex.P3 nor were reasons assigned. An order passed under Section 6 of the Act should contain reasons This Court in W.P.No.13839 of 2022 dated 06.05.2Ci22, while reiterating the observations in Kadiyala Sudershan and others >'S. Government of Andhra Pradesh\ set aside the order under Section fi of the Act on the ground that the order does not contain any reasons. 7. 8. A learned single judge of the composite High Cour 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, whi:.h is akin to a 2013(5)ALD212 SRS,J W.P.No.19424 of 2025 t decree, needs to be supported by a reasoned order comparable to a judgment. Otherwise, Section 7 of the Act show-cause notice would be rendered empty formality.” providing for issuance of a nugatory or reduced to an 9. In the case at hand, the order impugned contains neither consideration of the explanation nor reasons. 10. Learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.3349 of 2020 directed the petitioner from the land respondent authorities therein not to dispossess the until expiry of the time allowed for filing the appeal 11. Given the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by respondent No.4, under Section 6 of the Act, vide R.C.B.149/2025 dated 15.07.2025 (Ex.P1), is hereby s(4 aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.4. The learned respondent No.4 shall pass an appropriate order after considering the 15.07.2025, by providing an opportunity of hearing to th€' petitioner petitioner’s explanation dated 12. Respondent No.4 shall complete the possible, within two months from the date of exercise as expeditiously as receipt of a copy of the order. In case an order is passed by respondent No.4 under Section 6 of the Act, the petitioner has a right of appeal under Section 10 of the >\ct. Respondent No.4 shall not take any coercive steps till the expiry of the tim^s, granted for filing an appeal. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1- The Principal Secretary, r Amaravathi, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, f 4. The Tahsildar, Podalakur Mandal 5. One CC to Sri Kambhampati 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, 7. Two CD Copies Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, at Nellore Nellore, SPSR Nellore District Podalakur, SPSR Nellore District Ramesh Babu, Advoc ate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] TF HIGH COURT DATED:25/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19424 OF 2025 ' 17 SEP 2025 iNCsmntSMdodX^J^ ''■'^aeaisass^ l*=*! o»' o ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS