APHC01O384792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH w AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ' FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULYu TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE - ' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19449 OF 2025 Between: Kollati Krishna, S/o Maha Lakshmudu, Hindu, Aged about 52 years. Cultivation, R/o pallepalenf(Lakshmipuram) Village and Post, Kruthivennu Mandal, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, District. 2. The District Collector, Krishna District, Krishna. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 4. The Tahsildar, Kruthivennu Mandal Krishna District.'-"^ 5. The Village Revenue Officer, Pallepa'lam (Lakshmipuram) Village Kruthivennu Mandal. Guntur V--'" ...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 a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 4“" Respondent in passing the order under his proceedings Rc.B-187/2025 dt.21.07.2025 directing the ’T petitioner to vacate the property in an extent of Ac.0.003 cents located in R.S.No.443 of Lakshmipuram Village, Kruthivennu Mandal, Krishna District „ ^' vvithin 7 days otherwise initiating steps for demolition is illegal, arbitrary, / without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land encroachment Act, 1905, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 and 300-A Constitution of india and consequently setaside the ^spondent under his proceedings Rc.B-187/2025 th order passed by 4 dt.21.07.2025. 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 tt^ operation of order passed by the 4*^ Respondent under proceedings Rc.B- 187/2025 dt.21.07^25 during pendency of writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MANDALI CHIRANJEEVI BABU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order; APHC010384792025 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: 19449/2025 Between: 1.KOLLATI KRISHNA, S/0 MAHA LAKSHMUDU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O PALLEPALEM (LAKSHMIPURAM) VILLAGE AND POST, KRUTHIVENNU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT, KRISHNA. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, KRUTHIVENNU MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT. VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, PALLEPALAM (LAKSHMIPURAM) VILLAGE, KRUTHIVENNU MANDAL. 5.THE ...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 topleased to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of 4th Respondent the order under his proceedings Rc.B-187/2025 dt.21.07.2025 in passing SRS,J W.P.No.19449 of 2025 directing the petitioner to vacate the property in an extent of Ac.0.003 cents located in R.S.No.443 of Lakshmipuram Village, Kruthivennu Mandal, Krishna District within 7 days 'i otherwise initiating steps for demolition is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land encroachment Act, 1905, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 and 300-A Constitution of india and consequently setaside the order passed by 4th Respondent under his proceedings Rc.B- 187/2025 dt.21.07.2025 and pass 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 leased to stay the operation of order passed by the 4th Respondent under proceedings Rc.B- 187/2025 dt.21.07.2025 during pendency of writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.MANDALI CHIRANJEEVI BABU Counsel for the Respondent{S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri M. Chiranjeevi Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents. 2. A notice, under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued to the petitioner vide R.C.B. 187/2025 dated ‘ 26.06.2025 (Ex.P2), pointing out encroachment of Ac.0-003 cents of land in R.S.No.443 of Lakshmipuram Village, Kruthivennu Mandal, Krishna District, by constructing an iron shed on R & B road margin. The petitioner did not submit an explanation, and hence, an order under Section 6 of the Act passed by respondent No.4 vide Rc.B-187/2025 dated 21.07.2025, giving seven days to the petitioner to vacate the site. was SRS,J W.P.No.19449 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the shed stands the name of the petitioner’s wife, and the Village Revenue Officer issued a possession certificate dated 07.07.2022 (Ex.P3). Respondent No.4 ought to have issued notice to the petitioner’s wife, but not to the petitioner. He would further submit that the'wife of the petitioner has filed O.S.No.43 of 2025 file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Bantumilli, in pursuance of the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act. However, no injunction has been granted by the Court. Learned counsel would further submit that granting seven days to vacate the premises, despite sixty days provided to file an appeal, is impermissible. in on the 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, would submit that the petitioner failed to submit an explanation to the notice, dated 26.06.2025 (Ex.P2) under Section 7 of the Act. He would submit that a reasoned order was passed-by respondent No.4, on 21.07.2025. He would also submit that an appeal would lie under Section 10 of the Act to the Revenue Divisional Officer within sixty days. However, without availing remedy, the petitioner filed this writ petition. He would submit that the petitioner has not objected to the issuance of notice in his name by submitting an explanation. 1 5. No doubt notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued vide Ex.P2 dated 26.06.2025 to the petitioner, and the petitioner failed to submit explanation. Thereafter, respondent No.4 passed an order under Section 6 of the Act and a speaking order on 21.07.2025. an 6. The authority, before issuing notice, would have verified whether the property stands in the name- of the petitioner or his wife. Even the petitioner would have submitted objections and pointed out the same. That is not the end of the issue in the,case at hand. 7. In fact, the petitioner’s wife, as seen from the writ affidavit filed O.S.No.43 of 2025, immediately after receipt of the notice under Section 7 of SRS,J W.P.No.19449 of 2025 the Act. Thus, the petitioner’s wife is aware of the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act and has invoked the Civil Court's jurisdiction. Thus, even the wife of the petitioner is aware of notice under Sec 7 of the A.P.Lahd Encroachment Act, 1905. The authority passed a reasoned order. .8. Since a reasoned order is passed, the petitioner shall file a statutory appeal under Section 10 of the Act before respondent No.3. However, granting seven days to vacate the premises, in the opinion of this Court, is impermissible. Under the Act, the time stipulated to file an appeal is 60 days. 9. Given the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, giving liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 10 of the Act, before respondent No.3, within two weeks from today. If the petitioner files a statutory appeal, the learned respondent No.3 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders, including orders in an interlocutory application. The petitioner is also' at liberty to raise the ground as pleaded in the writ petition vis-a-vis the person in occupation. Respondent No.4 shall not interfere with the subject property for four weeks from today. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. Pradesh, 2. The District Collector, Krishna DistriH, Krishna. , Krishn^strict. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Machilipatnam 4. The Tahsildar, KruthivenYfu Mandal Krishna District. 5. The Village Revenue Officer, Pallepafam (Lakshmipuram) Kruthivennu IVfandal. 6. One CC to Sri Mandali Chiranjeevi Babu, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. Village ssb n i • - HIGH COURT DATED:25/07/2025 0COT ANDlj^; ORDER WP No.19449 OF 2025 11 AUG 2()H iS> to ^ . Currenl Seciion . ^ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS