APHC010481582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24977/2025 Between: 1. GALI LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O. LATE VANDRAPPA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE COOLI, 2. KURUBA GURUSIDDAMMA,, W/O GONEHAL HANUMANTHA RAYUDU, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE COOLI, BOTH ARE R/O NEMAKAL VILLAGE AND POST, BOMMANAHAL MANDAL, ANANTHAPURARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURARAM DISTRICT, ANANTHAPURARAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALYANADURGAM DIVISION, KALYANADURGAM, ANANTHAPURARAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, BOMMANAHAL MANDAL, BOMMANAHAL ANANTHAPURARAM 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 writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners house site admeasuring an extent of 44 x 22 feet of house site of Nemakal Village, Bommanahal Mandal, Ananthapuraram District. In spite of ad-interim injunction orders granted in favor of the petitioners in O.S.No 201/2025 in I.A.No.72/2025 on 17/07/2025., without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, Consequently direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners by not evicting the Flouse Site 2 admeasuring an extent of 44 X 22 feet of house site of Nemakal Village, Bommanahal Mandal, Ananthapuraram District and to 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 herein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners by not evicting the House Site admeasuring an extent of 44 x 22 feet of house site of Nemakal Village, Bommanahal Mandal, Ananthapuraram District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.24977 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners house site admeasuring an extent of 44 x 22 feet of house site of Nemakal Village, Bommanahal Mandal, Ananthapuraram District. In spite of ad-interim injunction orders granted in favor of the petitioners in O.S.No.201/2025 in I.A.No.72/2025 on 17/07/2025., without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, Consequently direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners by not evicting the house Site admeasuring an extent of 44 X 22 feet of house site of Nemakal Village, Bommanahal Mandal, Ananthapuraram District and to pass such other order or orders…” 2. Heard Sri M.Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for revenue for respondents. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the petitioners are in continuous possession and enjoyment over the house site to an extent of 42x22 cents in Nemakal Village, Bommanahal Mandal, Ananthapuram District, for about twelve years and the notice dated 21.08.2025, issued under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter for short referred as the „Act‟), is 4 contrary to the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao & Anr1. Thereafter, the petitioners have submitted explanation dated 01.09.2025 and the respondents have not considered the same. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that explanation will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed against the notice dated 21.08.2025. 5. 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 Secretary, Major Irrigation2. 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.” 1 1982 SCC (2) 134 2 2002 (6) ALD 83 A 5 6. 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. 7. Hence, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the explanation 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 thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 16.09.2025 KBN