APHC010385712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHR^PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction^ I MONDA?/, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTL WRIT PETITION NO: 19626 OF 2025 Between; Godavari Madhusudhana Rao, Dno 1-2. Karakavalasa, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagram, Andhra Pradesh. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Government of Andhra Pradesh, 0pp. NTR Health University, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh. . 3. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, 4. The Tahsildar, Gantyada Mandal, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. < ...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, direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction, set aside the Notice Rc.No. 135/2025/S.A dated 18.07.2025, issued by the 4th respondent under Section 6 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act or 1905, declare the action of the 4th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and violative of natural justice and , consequently direct the respondents not to evict/remove the name board of the petitioner from subject land without due process of law. ■ 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 suspend the proceeding Rc.No. 135/2025/S .A dated 18.0J,2025, issued by the respondent No 4 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K LAXMANA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010385712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 050 0Sfe [3331] ) MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19626/2025 Between: 1.GODAVARI MADHUSUDHANA RAO, DNO 1-2. KARAKAVALASA, GANTYADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGRAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2.THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION CCLA, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, OPP. NTR HEALTH UNIVERSITY, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, 4.THE TAHSILDAR, GANTYADA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 an appropriate writ, order, direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, set aside the Notice Rc.No. 135/2025/S.A dated 18.07.2025, issued by the 4th respondent under Section 6 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905, declare the action of the 4th respondent as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, ajid Sk, W.P.No.l9626of 2025 Violative of natural justice and consequently direct the evict/remove the name board of the petitioner from process of law. 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 Counsel for the Petitioner; 1. K LAXMANA SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: respondents not to subject land without due ::ORDER:: Heard Sri K. Lakshmana Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.V. Satayanarayana. learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents 1 to 4. 2. Respondent No.4, Tahsildar, issued reference No.135/2025/N dated 26.05.2025, notice in Form No.VII vide to the petitioner, pointing out encroachment in an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in survey Nos 81 and 82, Karakavalasa village. The petitioner, in response, submitted an explanation dated 26.07.2025. However, without considering the same, an order under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) respondent No.4 vide Rc.No. 135/2025/S.A. dated 18.07.2025 (Ex.P1). was passed by 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order under Ex.P1 was passed without considering the petitioner’s explanation and assigning any reasons. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would fairly submit that the order impugned does not contain explanation or any reasons. consideration of the petitioner’s SRS,J W.P.No.l9626of 2025 r’age 3 of 5 5. Thus, as seen from the material on record, there is no dispute regarding of notice under Section 7 of the Act, submission of explanation by the petitioner and passing an order under Section 6 of the Act (Ex.P1). the issuance A perusal of Ex.P1 reveals neither consideration of the explanation reasons were assigned. An order passed The reasons are the heart 6. submitted by the petitioner nor any under Section 6 of the Act should contain reasons, and soul of any order. Unless the order contains the reasons, even the appellate authority may not examine the validity or otherwise of the order. 7. In Kadiyala Sudershan Vs the Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat^ a learned identical issue and by its single judge of composite high court considered an observed 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. As discussed supra, no reasons were assigned in the order under Sec 6 of the Act. the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The of the Act, passed by respondent No.4 vide 8. Given order under Section 6 RC.NO.135/2025/S.A. dated 18.07.2025 (Ex.P1) is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to Respondent No.4. The learned Respondent No.4 shall appropriate order regarding the alleged encroachment in an extent of Nos 81 and 82, Karakavalasa village, after pass an Ac.0-02 cents in survey considering the petitioner’s explanation dated 26.07.2025 and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Respondent No.4 shall complete the exercise as expeditiously as possible, within four weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order. Till an order is passed, respondent No.4 shall not interfere in respect of the subject land. No costs. ^ 2013(5) 212 SRx W.P.No.19626 of 2025 In case of an order passed by respondent No.4 under Sec 6 of the Act, since the petitioner got a right of appeal under Section 10 of the Act, Respondent No.4 shall not take any coercive steps till the expiry of the time granted for filing an appeal. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd./- V.DIWAKAR deputy REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The Principal Secretary, Velagapudi, Amaravati. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Land Administration Andhra Pradesh, Opp. NTR Health University, Pradesh. 3. The District Collector, Vizianagaram District, 4. The Tahsildar, Gantyada Mandal, Pradesh. 5. One CC to Sri K Laxmana Sastry Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra 7. Two CD Copies Revenue Department, Secretariat, CCLA, Government of Vijayawada, Andhra Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh [OUT] TF HIGH COURT \ DATED:28/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19626 OF 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS