APHC010452712025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 23479 OF 2n?S - .t m PI RAO Between: 1. V. Chinna Poll Reddy, S/o Chinna Poll 2-1, Godugunuru, Badvel mandal, YSR District. 2. Smt. A.Lakshmi Reddy, age 48 years, R/o 2-52- Devi, W/o Chennampalli, Badvel, YSR District. Subba Reddy, H.No.6-6-165/7 ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, YSR District Kadapa. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Badvel, YSR District. 4. The Tahshiidar and Mandal Executive Magistrate Badvel Mandal, YSR District. 5. The Asst. Divisional Engineer (Operation) District. AP SPDCL Badvel, YSR ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the j, the High Court may be in the nature of writ of mandamus circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith pleased to pass orders particularly under Article 226 of the Constitution one declaring the orders of the 4**^ M’ m r respondent in Ref No. B/421/2025 dt. 22.8.2025 misconceived, without power and contrary to Section 7 A of A.P. Encroachment Act, 1905 and Section 3 of the (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 as amended by Section 2 of Act 35 of 2021, violative of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300 A of the of the Constitution India and consequently quash the same and direct the interfere with possession and enjoyment of the subject buildings in Plot No. 382, in Sy.No. 1768 of Chennam pally and also to give NOC for extending electrical connection to buildings bearing D.No. 6-60165-6 and D.No. 6- 60165-7 Chennampalli of Badvel municipality respectively and grant other relief as may be deemed just and necessary in the interests of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 as arbitrary, illegal. Land A.P. Assigned Lands of respondents not to such 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 direct the respondents to sanction electrical service to the petitioners houses bearing D.No.6-60165/6 & D.No.6-60165/7 Chennampalli of Badvel municipality respectively pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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 impugned orders of the 4*^ respondent in Ref No.B/421/2025 dt.22.08.2025 purporting to forefelt the petitioners houses in plot No.382 with Door No. 6-60165/6 and D.No.6-6-165/7 in Sy. No.1768 of Chennampalli within limits of Badvel municipality and direct the not to interfere with the enjoyment of the property pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI KOTA VENKATA RAMA RAO FOR APSPDCL ,SC The Court made the following order: ► 'i ANDHRA PRADESH APHC010452712025 ,N THE HIGH COURT Original Jurisdiction) [3330] ■IHS (Special PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE WRIT tarlada RAJASEKHAR RAO THE piTTiTinN No. 23479oLg^ POLL REDDY, AGE 48 BADVEL MANDAL, Between: 1 V CHINNA POLl YEARS, R/0 2-52-2-1 YSR DISTRICT. 2 SMT. A.LAKSHMl DEVI, _ CHENNAMPALLl, BADVEL RFDDY S/0 CHINNA godugunuru H.NO. 6-6-165/7 ...PETITIONER(S) W/O SUBBA REDDY YSR DISTRICT. AND REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT, ^ IecIeTAR^®' RSE'’''DEpfRTMENT VELAGAPUDI, 'I’/J^TpcTOR^YSR DISTRICT KADAPA. rTtir's;Sui°»7sSroFF,cEK, F»=«t 4 Tlfp ^AHSHILDAR AND MANE^L 5?rASsTDENA?^^^^^ OPERATION BADVEL, YSR DISTRICT. YSR executive MAGISTRATE AP SPDCL ...RESPONDENT(S); 22...»“ST.srr«rcS ,nces stated m the aft ^ of wnto Petition i the circumstances siaieu ,gr,y one in the nature or wni «“ '■rr.s.’S sssrs.™ illegal, misconceived without power an|^con^ , d Land Encroachment Act^_1®°® am ifl77 as amended by Section 2 of Lands (Prohibition - Act 35 of 2021, violative mandamus the 4th respondent of Transfers) Act, 1977 of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300 A of the of the 4 2 Constitution of India and consequently quash the same and direct the respondents not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the subject buildings in Plot No. 382, in Sy.No.1768 of Chennam pally and also to give NOC for extending electrical connection to buildings bearing D.No.6-60165-6 and D.No.6-60165-7 Chennampalli of Badvel municipality respectively and grant such other orders. Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1.KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: r ORDER; Article 226 of the is filed under Writ Petition is India for the following relief. The present Constitution of r one in the nature of writ of 'constitution declanng Ref.No.B/421/2025 without Land orders particularly Artirl© 226 of the nrandamos j^yyspondent I , "2“i riCtSiS'S™"" sK?:iS£™£i3-s— r-w relief.. to pass in the 1768 of Chennampalli extent of 547 I constructed of several villages have The petitioners submit that survey number Village which is pad of of Badvel Town and Block NO.1580 in an 2. Revenue , acres is part in the thousands of houses were said land since three decades after evacuation under Telugu Ganga The respondents 1768 by approving/regulanzmg 4^*^ respondent Project. submerged allowed construction of houses several layout/building plans i out plan approved in 2012 for the house in Sy.No. in the said land and the in Sy.No.1768 of issued in the in about 18 acres m site pattas itself got the lay Chennampally. Badvel in subject land. 4 3. Be that as it may, the petitioners’ vendor was assigned Plot No.382 in an extent of 4 cents, vide VHS/264/1417 dated 25.02.2008. The sale, possession and enjoyment of the plot No.382 in Sy.No.1768 \ of Chennam Pally Revenue Village is validated and the petitioners herein have constructed residential houses in the said site and also assigned door numbers, i.e. D.No.6-60165-7 & D.No.6-60165-6 respectively and the petitioners requested for NOC on 08.07.2025 to get electrical connection from the APSPDCL. It is submitted that in the case of other allottees, NOCs were granted, but the request of the petitioners was neither honoured nor rejected without any justification. 4. While the things stood thus, the 4^^ respondent had issued in B/421/2025 dated 26.07.2025 to show cause as to why the petitioners should not be evicted from the land under Section 6(1) of the A.P.Land Encroachment Land, 1905 (for short, ‘the Act’), and the property shall not be forfeited to the Government. notice The petitioners made representation on 11.08.2025 to grant two months’ time grounds, as the petitioners could not gather documents relating to the subject land and without giving proper and adequate opportunity without granting time, the respondents herein have on health and passed the impugned order dated 22.08.2025. 5. The said impugned notice is under challenge on the grounds that the petitioners herein have requested time to grant time to submit explanation and without considering the same, the impugned order came to be passed and it is also submitted that the 4'^ the competent authority to pass the impugned order dated 22.08.2025 respondent is not 5 % authority and relied on aside the impugned order. and the District Collector is the competent Section 7A of the Act. Hence, prayed to set Government Pleader Sri Divya Teja would impugned order came to of the Act comes into r Learned Assistant after following due procedure stated that Section 7A 6. , the submit that be passed and further operation only when the raised by the petitioners. Hence and denied the prayed to dismiss the Writ mob occupies the property contentions Petition. : to submit explanation, but impugned order came to be Admittedly the petitioners sought time without considering the same, the present 7. passed. 6 of the Act, to hold not to evict forcibly offered by the is Court places reliance of contemplated under Section facts of the case, means The procedure 8. a summary inquiry into the the explanation into consideration fortify the said contention, this ^ of Andhra Pradesh in the case . The without taking encroachers. To rpe judgment ofthe—^ Mapr Irr^Mion ofPre Jothi Education Socieiy v^. Division Bench of the High court held in the following. under Section 6 of respondents passed the order 28.4.2001 of the petitioner, in order to order passed by the respondents 28.4.2001 has i have held that the Since the without considering the the Encroachment Act on meef the ends of objections under Section 6 to be set aside and notice dated 18.4.2001 justice, the of the Encroachment Act on do so. Since we we 2002 (6) ALD 83 AP 6 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 petitioners and learned State Counsel, the above referred judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. The Court has determined that it is appropriate to consider the Writ Petition at the admission stage with the consent of both parties. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the writ petitioners to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 26.07.2025 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, addressing all the grievances including the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar in issuing the proceedings dated 22.08.2025, and on receiving such explanation, the respondents directed to examine the explanation submitted by the petitioners, addressing all the contentions raised by the petitioners, and pass eppropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioners. Till the decision is taken, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners’ property. 10. 11. are 7 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. 12. S6I- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //true copy// J To Department, Slate of Andhra Revenue 1 The Principal Secretary, Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2 The District Coliector, YSR District Kadapa. Divisional Officer. Badvel, YSR District. Mandal Executive Magistrate L 3. The Revenue 4 The Tahshildar and Badvet Mandal, YSR District. AP SPDCL Badvel, YSR Divisional Engineer (Operation) 5. The Asst. 8. Two CCS to 9. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED;08/09/2025 ORDER WP No. 23479 OF 2025 , ' I SEP 2025 )l'j V ^ y??' ★Mliirrent Sectioixl'^ o DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS