1 APHC010229662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11328/2025 Between: Katwal Abubakar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following relief: “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the impugned notice vide reference no. B/378/2025 dt. 04.04.2025 in respect of the land of the petitionerbeing an extent of Ac. 0.35 cents in Sy. No. 801-1 situated at Rayachoti village and Mandal, Sri Annamaiah district is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of article 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India, without jurisdiction and contrary 2 to the provisions of Madras act, 1905 and consequently set aside the above said impugned notice and pass such other order or orders” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted a D.K.T. patta vide D.K.T.No.4/1400, dated 28.09.1990, for land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.75 in Sy.No.800 and Ac.0.35 in Sy.No.801-1, totaling an extent of Ac.1.10, situated at Rayachoti Village and Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. The petitioner’s name was mutated in the revenue records, and a pattadar passbook and title deeds were issued in his favour. Since the date of assignment, the petitioner has been cultivating various crops and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the subject land. Earlier, when the respondents herein tried to dispossess the petitioner, he filed W.P.No.2025 of 2024 before this court. Wherein this Hon’ble Court, after hearing the matter, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner except through a procedure established by law. While things stood thus, the petitioner received a notice vide Ref.No.B/378/2025, dated 04.04.2025, issued by the 4th respondent, alleging that unauthorized occupation of kunta-poramboke land and directing the petitioner to appear before him on 30.04.2025. He further submits that the D.K.T. patta granted in respect of the subject land is still valid and in force. However, the 4th respondent has not initiated any proceedings under the provisions of the 3 Madras Act, 1905, in relation to the subject land. Aggrieved by the action of the 4th respondent, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in long possession and enjoyment of the subject property and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed by exercising power under Section 7 of the Madras Act. When the petitioner is in settled possession of the property, the remedy open to the respondents is to approach the Civil Court in view of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in “Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao”1. Instead of approaching the Civil Court to establish the title by the 4th respondent, he issued notice under Section 7 of the Madras Act, invoking summary procedure to evict the petitioner from the subject land is contrary to the principle laid down by this court as stated supra requested to allow the writ petition. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that a notice dated 04.04.2025 was issued under Section 7 of the Madras Act 03 of 1905, requested to pass appropriate orders. 6. In fact, the A.P.Land Encroachment Act is in force, but instead of following the procedure under the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, notice was issued under the Madras Act 03 of 1905, which is not applicable within the jurisction state of A.P.to the present alleged encroachment. 1 AIR 1982 SC 1081 4 7. On perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that no specific date and time is fixed for submitting explanation in terms of Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, hence, notice is incomplete. On this ground, the notice dated 04.04.2025 is liable to be set aside. 8. However, when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, it is the obligation of the State to approach the competent Civil Court and obtain relief for eviction of the petitioner or removal of objectionable encroachments. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in “Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao” (referred supra). In the said judgment, the Apex Court candidly held that the Government, in summary proceedings, cannot unilaterally decide its own title over the property, and their remedy is only to approach the competent Civil Court seeking declaration of title. 9. If the said principle is applied to the present facts of the case, remedy open to the 4th respondent to approach the competent Civil Court to establish the title and for recovery of the possession. Hence, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate action in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in “Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao” (referred supra). Therefore, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed, except by following the law laid down by the Apex Court in “Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao” (referred supra) and “Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.2” . 5 10. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:30.04.2025 klk 6 275 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11328 2025 Date:30.04.2025 klk