APHC010515442025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.26557 of 2025 Between: 1. GANDI MAHESH, S/O YERRI NAIDU, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O PAPAYYARAJU PALEM AREA, LAKSHMIPURAM, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2. GANDI @ KILAPARTHI PUNYAVATHI PUSHPA, W/O MAHESH, AGED 32 YEARS, R/O PAPAYYARAJU PALEM AREA, LAKSHMIPURAM, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 6. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, PENDURTHI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high 2 handed and illegal action on the part of the respondents in contemplating to demolish the dwelling House i.e., RCC Slab Building with Electricity Service Connection Number 1164842272002137 situated in an extent of 88.88 Sq.Yards, covered by Survey No. 105/2, near D.No. 10-138/8, Papayyaraju Palem area, Lakshmipuram, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District and dispossess the petitioners from the said property pursuant to notice in Rc.No.680/2025/JA/ Dated 15-09-2025 issued under section 7 of A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 without even waiting for the time of 15 days granted to show cause in the said notice, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India, and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in any manner including demolition and dispossession by set aside the impugned notice, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed and illegal action on the part of the respondents in contemplating to demolish the dwelling House i.e., RCC Slab Building with Electricity Service Connection Number: 1164842272002137 situated in an extent of 88.88 Sq.Yards, covered by Survey No.105/2, near D.No.10-138/8, Papayyaraju Palem area, Lakshmipuram, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District and dispossess the petitioners from the said property pursuant to notice in Rc.No.680/2025/JA/Dated: 15.09.2025 issued under Section 7 of A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 without even waiting for the time of 15 days granted to show cause in the said notice, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in any manner including demolition and dispossession by set aside the impugned notice in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders ….” 2. Assailing the impugned notice dated 15.09.2025 issued under Section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short Act), the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The 4th respondent – Tahsildar issued the impugned notice calling for explanation by the petitioners as to why the petitioners should not be evicted from the Government land and forfeiture of buildings, constructions and things deposited, mentioned in the notice. 4 4. Learned State Counsel would submit that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the show cause notice. 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 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.” 6. After hearing both learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel, this Court has determined that the above referred 1 2002 (6) ALD 83 AP 5 judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case and it is appropriate to consider the Writ Petition at the admission stage with the consent of both parties. 7. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to submit explanation to the impugned notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on submitting such explanation, the respondents are directed 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, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 25.09.2025 siva 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.26557 of 2025 Date: 25.09.2025 siva