APHC010397972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20089/2025 Between: 1. T. ANIL KUMAR,, S/O T. MANI, AGED 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KOPPEDU, ACHARYULA KANDRIGA, KOPPEDU, NINDRA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517587. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS AT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NAGARI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, NINDRA MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent in issuing the order under Section 6 of SRS,J W.P.No.20089 of 2025 the Act (AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905) in the form of a notice in Roc.A/339/2025 dated 30.07.2025 to evict the land within 48 hours in an extent of Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy. No. 17/1 of Koppedu Village, Nindra Mandal, Chittoor District without considering the response of the petitioner dated 26.07.2025 to the notice under Section 7 of AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in Roc.A/339/2025 dated 23.07.2025 and also without there being any reference to the response of the petitioner as iliegal, arbitrary and also oppose to the principles of natural justice as well as oppose to Article 300-A of the constitution of India consequentially suspend the operation of the order under Section 6 of the Act (AP Land Encroachment Act. 1905) in the form of a notrce in Roc.A/339/2025 dated 30.07.2025 by directing the 4th respondent not to interfere with the possession of the property of the petitioner i.e., the temporary zinc sheet shed in an extent of Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy. No. 17/1 of Koppedu Village, Nindra Mandal, Chittoor District 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 Pleased to suspend the operation of the order under Section 6 of the Act [AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905] in the form of a notice in Roc.A/339/2025 dated 30.07.2025 by directing the 4th respondent not to interfere with the possession of the property of the petitioner i.e., the temporary zinc sheet shed in an extent of Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy. No. 17/1 of Koppedu Village, Nindra Mandal, Chittoor District pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ::ORDER:: Heard Sri K. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri V. Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4. Page 3 of 5 SRS,J W.P.No.20089 of 2025 2. Respondent No.4, Tahsildar, issued a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short ‘the Act’) to the petitioner vide Roc.A/339/2025 dated 23.07.2025 (Ex.P1), pointing out that the petitioner has occupied an extent of Ac.0-03 cents out of Ac.54.21 cents in survey No.17/1, Koppedu Village, Nindra Mandal, Chittoor District. The petitioner, in response, submitted an explanation dated 26.07.2025. However, without considering the same, respondent No.4 passed an order under Section 6 of the Act vide Roc No.A/339/2025 dated 30.07.2025 (Ex.P3). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.4 neither considered the petitioner’s explanation nor passed a reasoned order. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would fairly submit that the order passed under Section 6 of the Act does not contain reasons and hence, will not withstand legal scrutiny. 5. Thus, as seen from the material on record, there is no dispute regarding the 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 (Ex.P3). 6. A perusal of Ex.P1 reveals neither consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner nor any reasons were assigned. An order passed under Section 6 of the Act should contain reasons. The reasons are the heart 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 by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat1 a learned single judge of composite high court considered an identical issue and 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, 1 2013(5) 212 SRS,J W.P.No.20089 of 2025 comparable to a judgment. As discussed supra, no reasons were assigned in the order under Section 6 of the Act. 8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is allowed. The order under Section 6 of the Act, passed by respondent No.4 vide Roc No.A/339/2025 dated 30.07.2025 (Ex.P3), is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.4. The learned respondent No.4 shall pass an appropriate order regarding the alleged encroachment in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in survey No.17/1, Koppedu Village, Nindra Mandal, Chittoor District, after 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. In case of an order passed by respondent No.4 under Section 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. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 31.07.2025 ikn SRS,J W.P.No.20089 of 2025 211 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 20089 of 2025 Date: 31.07.2025 IKN