APHC010387112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19700 OF 2025 Between: K Balaji, (Mentioned as G. Balaji Naidu in the Impugned Notice), S/o. Purushottam Naidu, Aged about 44 years, R/o. Govardhanagiri Village, Pichatur Mandal, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh, Presently residing at Bangalore, Karnataka. ...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, Tirupati. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasti Division, Tirupati District. 4. The Thasildar, pichatur Mandal, Tirupati District. 5. The Mandal Revenue inspector, Pichatur 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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings bearing Ref. No. ROCA/32/2025 dated 14.07.2025 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and earlier notice bearing Ref. No. ROCA/32/2025 dated 09.06.2025 under Section 7 of the same Act as illegal, arbitrary, without Jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same and not to take any coercive steps in pursuant to the said notices. 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 proceedings bearing Ref. No. ROCA/32/2025 dated 14.07.2025 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and earlier notice bearing Ref. No. ROCA/32/2025 dated 09.06.2025 under Section 7 same Act and consequently not to take any coercive steps in pursuant to the said notices, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010387112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19700/2025 Between: 1.K BALAJI, (MENTIONED AS G. BALAJI NAIDU IN THE IMPUGNED NOTICE), S/0. PURUSHOTTAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/0. GOVARDHANAGIRI VILLAGE, PICHATUR MANUAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT BANGALORE, KARNATAKA. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKALAHASTI DIVISION TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4.THE THASILDAR, PICHATUR MANUAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5.THE MANUAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, PICHATUR 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 issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing SRS,J W.P.No,19700 of 202^ proceedings bearing Ref. No. ROCA/32/2025 dated 14.07.2025 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and earlier notice bearing Ref. No. ROCA/32/2025 dated 09.06.2025 under Section 7 of the same Act as illegal, arbitrary, without Jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same and not to take any coercive steps in pursuant to the said notices 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 may be pleased to suspend the proceedings bearing Ref. No. ROCA/32/2025 dated 14.07.2025 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and earlier notice bearing Ref. No. 09.06.2025 under Section 7 same Act and consequently not to take any coercive steps in pursuant to the said notices, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition, and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: ROCA/32/2025 dated 1.ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri B. Uma Maharshi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri A. Pandu Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, appeared for respondents 1 to 5. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and his family members owned an agricultural land of an extent of Ac. 100.50 cents in Sy.Nos.47, 51, 54, 55, 56, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 75, 79, 95, 123, 125 & 127 of Goverdhana Giri Village, Pichaturu Mandal, Tirupati District. 4. SRS,J W.P.No. 19700 Of 2025 Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar issued notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide R.O.C.A/32/2025, dated 09.06.2025 (Ex.P2), pointing out that the petitioner encroached land of an extent of Ac.0.84 cents in Sy.No.66-30 and Ac.0.59 cents in Sy.No.67-10 & 12 of Goverdhana Giri Village. The petitioner requested time to submit an explanation on 09.06.2025, and the same was communicated to respondent No.4 by registered post on 17.06.2025 (Ex.P4). The petitioner also made an F-line application vide FSNV01250075812, dated 09.06.2025 (EX.P3) to survey and demarcate boundaries in respect of Sy.No.67. Respondent No.4 passed an order under Section 6 of the Act vide Roc.A/32/2025, dated 14.07.2025 (Ex.P1). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even without conducting the survey, respondent No.4 issued notice as the petitioner encroached on the land. He would also submit that, unless and until the survey is conducted, identifying the alleged encroachment, without issuing notice under the Act itself, is illegal and arbitrary. He would also submit that, in fact, the petitioner made an F-line application dated 09.06.2025 (Ex.P3) to respondent No.4 requesting the authority to conduct a survey, and the same is pending. 4. Sri G. Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, would submit that the petitioner failed to submit an explanation to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act. Since the petitioner failed to submit an explanation, an order under Section 6 of the Act was passed. He would also submit that without availing the statutory remedy, the petitioner approached this Court. 5. No doubt a notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued to the petitioner on 09.06.2025. In the notice, it was pointed out that the petitioner encroached land of an extent of Ac.0.84 cents in Sy.No.66-30 and Ac.0.59 , cents in Sy.No.67-10 & 12 of Goverdhana Giri Village. As rightly pointed out 6. Page 4 of 6 SRS.J W.P.No.19700of2025 ^ by the learned counsel for the petitioner, nothing is discernible from the notice regarding the survey, if any, conducted. As seen from para No.2 of the affidavit, the petitioner and his family members owned land of an extent of Ac. 100.50 cents in different survey numbers. The petitioner also made an F- line application on 09.06.2025, requesting the authority to conduct a survey and fix boundaries. Without conducting a survey, the authority concluded, as if the petitioner encroached on a land referred to in the notice. The notice doesn’t indicate any references regarding the survey. In the facts of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that issuing notice under Section 7 of the Act and passing an order under Section 6 of the Act, concluding the alleged encroachment,is illegal and arbitrary. 7. 8. The Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kadiyala Sudhershan v. Government of Andhra Pradesh\ observed as under: “A person in possession of the Government land is liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Act. The Act has laid down the procedure for evicting such person. As a first step towards this direction, a show-cause notice under Section 7 of the Act requires to be given to the person in occupation of the land. After receiving the notice, an order needs to be passed under Section 6 of the Act. If the competent authority is satisfied that the person in possession of the land is liable to the evicted, he has to issue a notice In the prescribed form. Though the provisions of Section 6 of the Act do not in express terms enjoin on the competent authority to pass a speaking order, the very fact that Section 7 of the Act envisages a show-cause notice pre supposes that the competent authority has to deal with the explanation/objections filed by the person in possession of the land. Unless a reasoned order is passed, the person in occupation of the land does not know as to why an order of eviction is passed against '2013(5) ALD212 SRS,J W.P.No.19700 of 2025 him. Further, an appeal under Section 10 of the Act is envisaged by the Act. Unless the order contains reasons, the appellate authority will not be in a position to examine the validity or otherwise of the order and decide the appeal. From the scheme of the Act, I am 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 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. ” Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the order issued under Section 6 of the Act vide Roc.A/32/2025, dated 14.07.2025 (Ex.PI). The matter is remitted to respondent No.4. The petitioner shall submit an explanation to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act vide Ex.P2, within two (02) weeks from today. 9. Upon receipt of the explanation, respondent No.4 shall conduct a fresh inquiry, by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order. Respondent No.4 shall complete the exercise within six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Till an order is passed under Section 6 of the Act, respondent No.4 shall not interfere with the land of an extent of Ac.0.84 cents in Sy.No.66-30 and Ac.0.59 cents in Sy.No.67-10 & 12 of Goverdhana Giri Village, Pichaturu Mandal, Tirupati District. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/-B.PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati District, Tirupati. % 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasti Division, Tirupati District. The Thasildar, pichatur Mandal, Tirupati District. The Mandal Revenue inspector, Pichatur Mandal, Tirupati District. One CC to Sri. Ancha Panduranga Rao Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. gsc HIGH COURT DATED:30/07/2025 ORDER WP NO. 19700 OF 2025 ; 1 2 AUG 2025 o ’^VCicreiitSwIiaii.^y ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS