APHC010408712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20857 OF 2025 Between: 1. G SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE, S/o late Venkatadri aged 70 years R/o Gidijala Village, Anandapuram Mandal Visakhapatnam District. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District - 522 237. 2. The District Collector, Visakhapatnam Office of the District Collector, Maharanipeta, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh - 530 002. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Visakhapatnam Revenue Division, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Tahsildar, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District Andhra Pradesh - 530052. 5. The Gidijala Gram Panchayat, Represented by its Secretary, Gidijala, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam 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 topleased to issue, an order or direction, in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent vide Rc.No. 128/2025/A dated 04.08.2025 issued under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in respect of land to an extent of Ac 2.00 cents in Sy.No.310/5 and an extent of Ac 2.04 cents in Sy.No.311/14 of Gidijala Village, Anandapuram Mandal, 2 Visakhapatnam District along with the consequential eviction notice of the even date, threatening to evict the petitioner by demolishing the RCC structures at premises bearing D.No.4- 713 and D.No.4-715 and by removing the mango topes as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently set- aside the proceedings of the 4th respondent vide Rc.No. 128/2025/A dated 04.08.2025 along with eviction notice issued under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and pass 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 stay all further proceedings in furtherance of the proceedings of the 4th respondent vide Rc.No. 128/2025/A dated 04.08.2025 and pass IA NO: 2 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 direct the respondents not to demolish the RCC structures including the premises bearing D.No.4- 713 and D.No.4-715 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MEKA RAHUL CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20857 of 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… to issue an order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 4th respondent vide Rc. No.128/2025/A dated 04.08.2025 issued under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in respect of land to an extent of Ac. 2.00 cents in Sy. No.310/5 and an extent of Ac.2.04 cents in Sy. No.311/14 of Gidijala Village, Anandapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam District along with the consequential eviction notice of the even date, threatening to evict the petitioner by demolishing the RCC structures at premises bearing D.No.4-713 and D.No.4- 715 and by removing the mango topes as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the proceedings of the 4th respondent vide Rc.No.128/2025/A dated 04.08.2025 along with eviction notice issued under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and pass.…” 2. The contention of the petitioner is that, in pursuant to the notice, issued by the 4th respondent under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905 (hereafter referred to as Act) the petitioner has filed his objections to the notice dated on 28.05.2025, subsequent to the filing of objections, the petitioner has challenged the notice issued under section 7 of the Act before this Court through 4 W.P.No.14136 of 2025 and this court directed that ‘a personal hearing’ be given before taking any action on the impugned notice. 3. It is further contention of the petitioner that subsequently the 4th respondent has delivered the impugned proceedings vide Rc. No: 128/2025/A, dated 04.08.2025 under section 6 of the Act directing the petitioner herein to vacate from the land in Sy No. 310/5 and 311/14 in an extent of Ac. 4.04 cents, without giving personal hearing, hence prayed to set aside the notice issued under section 6 of the Act. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue furnished written instruction letter dated 06.08.2025 addressed by the Tehsildar, Anandapuram Mandal and the same is placed on record. The said instructions provide that an opportunity of hearing was given to the writ petitioner and the impugned notice was delivered after personal hearing. 5. Upon careful review of the inquiry report warily, it is evident that the writ petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of a personal hearing, and the direction issued by this court in W.P. No.14136 of 2025 order dated 05.06.2025 has not been adhered by the 4th respondent. This Court took cognizance of the grievance made by the petitioner that the petitioner was not given opportunity of personal hearing by the 4th respondent and the order passed for vacating the land was totally contrary to the order of this court in W.P. No: 14136 of 5 2025 order dated 05.06.2025 and it amounts violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued vide Rc.No.128/2025/A, dated 04.08.2025, under section 6 of the Act, directing the petitioner herein to vacate from the land in Sy No. 310/5 and 311/14 in an extent of Ac. 4.04 cents, is hereby set aside and the 4th respondent/ Tahsildar is hereby directed to pass appropriate order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order after giving an opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner herein. And it is need to observe that the petitioner shall cooperate to the authorities for the adjudication in the event the petitioner fails to cooperate, authorities may pass appropriate order after recording reasons. 7. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. However, no costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date : 06.08.2025 SJ 6 42 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20857 of 2025 Date : 06.08.2025 SJ