APHC010456152025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23251/2025 Between: 1. KALAGARLA VENKATA RAO, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. ARAKU VALLEY VILLAGE AND MANDAL, PEDALABUDU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PADERU, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PADERU, ARAKU VALLEY MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ARAKU VALLEY MANDAL, ALLURI SEETHARAMARAJU 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 topleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondent No. 4 in trying to evict/dispossess the petitioner from his house property consisting an extent of 0.036 cents in Survey No. 5-2 situated in Kantabamsuguda village, Araku Valley Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principal of natural justice and violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4TH respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property consisting of an extent of 0.036 cents in Survey No. 5-2 situated in Kantabamsuguda village, Araku Valley Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District 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 direct the 4TH respondent not 2 to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property consisting an extent of 0.036 cents in Survey No. situated in Kantabamsuguda village, Alluri 5-2 Araku Valley Mandal, Seetharamaraju District disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23251 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondent No.4 in trying to evict/dispossess the petitioner from his house property consisting an extent of 0.036 cents in Survey No.5-2 situated in Kantabamsuguda village, Araku Valley Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against the principal of natural justice and violative of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4TH respondent not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's property consisting of an extent of 0.036 cents in Survey No.5-2 situated in Kantabamsuguda village, Araku Valley Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District and pass such other order or orders…” 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents. 3. It is asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 4th respondent issued show cause notice vide Rc.No.201/2025/SA dated 23.07.2025, under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter for short referred as the „Act‟) alleging that the petitioner has unauthorizedly occupied Ac.0.036 cents in Survey No.5-2 situated in Kantabamsuguda Village, Araku Valley Mandal, Alluri Seetharamaraju District. Pursuant to the 4 said notice, the petitioner has submitted explanation on 04.08.2025. Without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the respondents are trying to evict/dispossess the petitioner from house property. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that the explanation offered by the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law. 5. The procedure contemplated under Section 6 of the Act is 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. 6. To fortify the said contention, this Court places reliance on the judgment of the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Pre.Jothi Education Society vs Secretary, Major Irrigation1, the Division Bench of the High Court held in the following manner: “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 1 2002 (6) ALD 83 AP 5 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.” 7. 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. 8. Hence, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner. Till the decision is 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 thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 02.09.2025 KBN