APHC010014572025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [0] WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 720/2025 Between: 1. CHATTA ARJUN RAO, S/O CHATTA CHINAVENKATARAMAIH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, C/O PANDAVANIVAS WATHARE MALA, GHORPADI, PUNE,MAHARASTRA-411001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 4TH BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, ROOM NO 135, A.P SECRETARIAT OFFICE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, CHANDRASHEKARAPURAM MANDAL (REGULACHILAKA VILLAGE JURISDICTION), PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE VRO, (VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, REGULACHILAKA VILLAGE, CHANDRASHEKARAPURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM 2 DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. REGULAGADDA VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri R. Venkatesh, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri K. Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, Land Acquisition, Stamps & Registration. 2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Notice issued by the Respondent Authorities under Section 7 of the A.P Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short the ‘Act’) dated 30.12.2024 (Ex.P.1) and under Section 6 of the Madras Act (Ex.P.2). Learned Counsel would submit that the Notice under Section 6 of the Madras Act is illegal, inasmuch as the Madras Act does not exists. This apart, the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner would submit that, the Writ Petitioner, in response to the Notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, has submitted an explanation on 06.01.2025 (Ex.P.4) and on the same date, without considering the explanation of the Writ Petitioner, the Respondent Authorities have issued the Impugned Notice under Section 6 of the Madras Act. 3. The Notice issued to the Writ Petitioner Under Section 6 is not sustainable under law for the following reasons : i) That it is issued invoking the Madras Act; ii) That it suffers from non-application of mind, inasmuch as the explanation was submitted by the Writ Petitioner on 06.01.2025 and that there is no reference to such explanation in the Impugned Notice. 3 4. In this view of the matter, the Notice under Section 6 of the Madras Act, dated 06.01.2025 (Ex.P.2) is set aside as being illegal. Liberty is granted to the Official Respondents to consider the explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioner on 06.01.2025 (Ex.P.4) objectively and pass a Speaking Order. Needless to state that Statute provides 60 days time for preferring an Appeal. If an Order is passed after considering the explanation of the Writ Petitioner, the Respondent Authorities cannot initiate any coercive action till the completion of 60 days statutory period for preferring an Appeal. 5.With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. 6.Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 08.01.2025 JKS 4 52 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 720 OF 2025 08.01.2025 JKS