APHC010422992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. BETWEEN: 1. POGIRI ADINARAYANA, S/o PEDDA APPANNA AGED 64 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O PEDDA VEEDHI, NAKKAPETA VILLAGE, G. SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR, G. SIGADAM MANDAL, DISTRICT. 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 Notice dt. 04.08.2025 in Rc.No.61/2025 issued under Section 6 of A. P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by the 4TH respondent thereby directed the petitioner to vacate from his respective land admeasuring Ac.0.012 cents in Survey No.236, situated at IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21574/2025 POGIRI ADINARAYANA, S/o PEDDA APPANNA AGED 64 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O PEDDA VEEDHI, NAKKAPETA VILLAGE, G. SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. TAHSILDAR, G. SIGADAM MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM ...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 one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Notice dt. 04.08.2025 in Rc.No.61/2025 issued under Section 6 of A. P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by the 4TH respondent thereby directed the petitioner to vacate from his respective land Ac.0.012 cents in Survey No.236, situated at IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO POGIRI ADINARAYANA, S/o PEDDA APPANNA AGED 64 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O PEDDA VEEDHI, NAKKAPETA VILLAGE, G. SIGADAM MANDAL, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM SRIKAKULAM ...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 one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Notice dt. 04.08.2025 in Rc.No.61/2025 issued under Section 6 of A. P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by the 4TH respondent thereby directed the petitioner to vacate from his respective land Ac.0.012 cents in Survey No.236, situated at 2 Nakkapeta village, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District, within a period of seven (07) days from the date of receipt of the said notices, without considering the explanation dt. 14.07.2025 submitted to Notice dt. 30.06.2025 and explanation dt. 23.07.2025 submitted to the Notice dt. 15.07.2025 issued under Section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by the 4THrespondent and without passing reasoned order and consequential action of the 4TH respondent in highhandedly taking steps to demolish the petitioners cattle shed situated in above said lands, as illegal, irregular, irrational, violative of principles of natural justice and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Notice dt. 04.08.2025 and direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of above said lands and pass s Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Notice dated 04.08.2025 in Rc. No.61/2025 issued under Section 6 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, whereby by the 4th respondent, enjoined the petitioner to vacate from the premises, from respective land admeasuring Ac.0.012 cents in Survey No.236 situated at Nakkapeta village, G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District, within a period of seven (07) days from the date of receipt of the said notice, The actions taken by the 4th respondent regarding the demolition of the petitioner’s cattle shed, without considering the explanations submitted on 14.07.2025 and 23.07.2025 in response to notices dated 30.06.2025 and 15.07.2025 issued under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and without a reasoned order, are deemed illegal, irregular, and irrational. These actions violate principles of natural justice and are contrary to Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India, in consequential prayed to set aside the Notice dated 04.08.2025 and to direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of above said lands. 4 2. Precisely the Writ Petition is filed on the ground that without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the present impugned notice came to be issued under Section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, (for short Act). 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader furnished the correspondence made by the Tahsildar to the Learned Government Pleader, dated 14.08.2025 (as part of the record) and the relevant paragraphs are hereby extracted for disposal of the Writ Petition: It is also submitted that as per the Report of the Mandal Surveyor and the Mandal Revenue Inspector, G.Signadam, VRO and VS of Nakkapeta Village and also as per A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, Notice U/s 7 were issued on 15.07.2025 as they were tank bed encroachers which is highly objectionable and directed to submit explanation with a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notices. The petitioner and other 36 farmers submitted their common explanation on 23.07.2025 and requested to drop all the further proceedings in this regard. I further submit that the common explanation submitted by the encroachers is not convincible as they are enjoying little parts of the above said land ancestrally for the last 60 years. 5 I submit that in pursuance to the Common orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati in Suo motu PIL No.108/2022, the notice in Form.6 under A.P.L.E. Act was issued to the petitioner vide Rc.No.61/2025, Dt.04.08.2025 to vacate the the encroachment from his respective land admeasuring Ac.0.605 cents in Sy.No.23-9, Ac.0.013 cents in Sy.No.236, Ac.0.081 cents in Sy.No.226 situated at Nakkapeta Village of G.Sigadam Mandal Srikakulam District. 4. It is submitted that to protect the water bodies and not to put the water bodies to any other use and also to take necessary action for all related aspects of the matter including removal of encroachment over the water bodies as per the common order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Amaravati on 20.10.2022 in Suo motu W.P. (PIL) No.108/2022. 5. As per CCLA’s Ref. REV02-25/2/2022 dt.04.07.2023, and as per Section 38 of A.P. Irrigation, Utilisation and Command Area Development Act, 1984, the Irrigation Authorities are responsible for getting eviction of encroachments on water bodies. In the above circumstances, the Asst. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department was requested to take steps to remove the encroachments in the said irrigation tank vide Rc.No.61/2025A dt.11.08.2025 of office of the Tahsildar. 6 6. Regarding to occupation in Sy.No.233-9, it is classified as Burial Ground. As G.O.Ms.No.188 Panchayati Raj and Rural Development dt.21.07.2021, Category-C, burial grounds are vested with Grama Panchayat, so concerned Nakkapeta village Panchayat Secretary was addressed letter to remove the encroachments in Burial ground vide Rc.No.61/2025A dated 11.08.2025. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that, as per the order in W.P. (PIL) No.108/2022, the respondents are required to follow a specific procedure, and in the present case, the petitioner has submitted his explanation and without considering the same, the impugned notice has been issued directing the petitioner to vacate from the possession of the property, stating that failing which, the respondents will initiate appropriate proceedings for eviction from the property referred to in the impugned notice. 8. The procedure contemplated under Section 6 of the Act, to hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case, means not to evict forcibly without taking into consideration the explanation offered by the encroachers. To fortify the said contention, this Court places reliance of the judgment of the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Pre. Jothi Education Society vs 7 Secretary, Major Irrigation1. The Division Bench of the High Court held in the following: “Since the respondents passed the order under Section 6 of the Encroachment Act on 28.4.2001 without considering the objections of the petitioner, in order to meet the ends of justice, the order passed by the respondents under Section 6 of the Encroachment Act on 28.4.2001 has to be set aside and we do so. Since we have held that the notice dated 18.4.2001 issued by the respondents under Section 7 of the Encroachment Act is a proper notice and the objections filed by the petitioner on 30.4.2001 have not been considered, we permit the respondents to pass appropriate order in the light of the objections filed on 30.4.2001 by the petitioner to the Sec.7 notice, according to law. Pending a decision by the respondents as directed by us, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner by the respondents.” 9. After hearing both learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel, the above referred judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. 10. Hence, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the explanations submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Till the decision is 1 2002 (6) ALD 83 A 8 taken, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner’s property. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 19.08.2025 Harin 9 228 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 21574 OF 2025 Date: 19-08-2025 Harin