APHC010482282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 24628/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK RASOOL BASHA, S/O. MAQBUL BASHA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/ODOOR NO. 3/160, B K PALLE, GOLLAPALLI RING ROAD, MADANAPALLE TOWN ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MADANAPALLE DIVISION, MADANAPALLE ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MADANAPALLE DIVISION, MADANAPALLE ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue any writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 4TH respondent in issuing proceedings vide Ref. No. D/04/2025 dt. 08- 09-2025 issued U/s 6 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 for demolition of the structures after disconnecting power supply without considering Objections dt. 08-09-2025 to the Show-cause Notice dt. 01-09- 2025 (received by Petitioner on 03-09-2025) u/s 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is illegal, arbitrary and Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and to pass….” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property, admeasuring Ac.0.02 cents, situated in S.Y. No.390, D.No.3/160, Gollapalli Ring Road, Madanapalle, having acquired the said property from his vendor through a registered sale deed in the year 2015. Since then, the petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. While things stood thus, the 4th respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 01.09.2025 under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, alleging that the petitioner is an encroacher and directing him to submit an explanation within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, although the notice was issued on 01.09.2025, but the same was received by the petitioner on 03.09.2025, and he submitted his detailed explanation on 06.09.2025, which was received by the respondents on 08.09.2025. However, notwithstanding the submission of the explanation within the stipulated period, the 4th respondent, as if there is no explanation was submitted, passed the impugned order under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dated 08.09.2025, without considering the same directing the petitioner to vacate the subject land immediately, without giving any opportunity of hearing and without following due procedure and also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that, since the petitioner already submitted his detailed explanation within a reasonable time, the same would be considered, and an appropriate order would be passed in accordance with law. Further, the 4th respondent may pass appropriate orders if the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, and on perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dated 01.09.2025, even assuming it was received on 02.09.2025, allowed a reply period of seven days, which would end on 08.09.2025. It is further observed that the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 06.09.2025 pursuant to the notice, within the stipulated time, but alleges that the same was not received by the respondents. It is settled law that when a public authority issues a notice, it has a statutory obligation to consider any explanation submitted within the prescribed period. In the present case, the petitioner submitted his explanation within the prescribed period; therefore, passing the impugned order dated 08.09.2025 by the 4th respondent without considering it is in violation of the principles of natural justice, fairness, and reasonableness, which are basic tenets of the administration of law. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned notice dated 08.09.2025 passed by the 4th respondent in violation of the principles of natural justice as well as fairness and reasonableness on the part of the public authority. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned notice dated 08.09.2025 passed by the 4th respondent. However, the 4th respondent is directed to consider the explanation of the petitioner dated 08.09.2025 and pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stakeholders, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 12.09.2025 klk 541 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.24628 of 2025 12.09.2025 kkllkk