APHC010471252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION BETWEEN: 1. B LAKSHMI NARAYANAMMA, W/ YEARS, OCC: VILLAGE, NAGARI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. V. LATHA, W/o HOUSEWIFE R/ NAGARI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. J. BABU, S/o. LATE JANAKIRAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC VILLAGE, NAGARI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 1. THE STATE OF PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, NAGARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 24763/2025 B LAKSHMI NARAYANAMMA, W/o. J.BABU, AGE 60 HOUSEWIFE R/o. GUNDRAJAKUPPAM VILLAGE, NAGARI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. o. J.VENKATESH, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE R/o. GUNDRAJAKUPPAM VILLAGE, NAGARI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA LATE JANAKIRAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: FARMER R/o. GUNDRAJAKUPPAM VILLAGE, NAGARI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI. THE TAHSILDAR, NAGARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO J.BABU, AGE 60 GUNDRAJAKUPPAM VILLAGE, NAGARI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, J.VENKATESH, AGE 45 YEARS, OCC: VILLAGE, NAGARI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA LATE JANAKIRAMA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT GUNDRAJAKUPPAM VILLAGE, NAGARI MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ...PETITIONER(S) ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THE TAHSILDAR, NAGARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing Proceedings No. RoC.A/50/2025 dated 24-07-2025 for cancelling or resuming the assigned lands in Survey Nos.292/2, 292/3 and 292/4 in Gundrajakuppam Village, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District without following due process of law, and not considering our representation dated 11-08-2025 as violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. C M R VELU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the Proceedings No.RoC.A/50/2025, dated 24.07.2025, for cancelling or resuming the assigned lands in Survey Nos.292/2, 292/3 and 292/4, in Gundrajakuppam village, Nagari Mandal, Chittoor District, without following due process of law, without considering the explanations dated 11.08.2025 submitted by the petitioners. 2. Precisely the Writ Petition is filed on the ground that without considering the explanations offered by the petitioners, the respondents are trying to resume the assigned lands. 3. It is the specific pleading of the petitioners that they have submitted their explanations and without considering the same, the respondents are trying to resume the possession of the property, stating that the respondents will initiate appropriate proceedings for resuming the property referred to in the impugned notice. 4. 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 4 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 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.” 5. 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. 1 2002 (6) ALD 83 A 5 6. Hence, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the explanations submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate 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. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 23.09.2025 Harin 6 110 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 24763 OF 2025 Date: 23-09-2025 Harin