IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11147 OF 2025 Between: Penumallem Sreenivasulu Reddy, S/o. Late Muni Reddy, aged about 80 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. D.No.1-84, Thanapalli, Tirupathi Rural, Kattakindavankarapuram, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh-517561. Penumallem Munemma, W/o. Penumallem Sreenivasulu Reddy, aged about 75 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. D.No.1-84, Thanapalli, Tirupathi Rural, Kattakindavankarapuram, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh-517561. ...PETITIONERS 1. 2. AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Tirupathi. The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupathi. 1. 2. 3. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order in Roc.No.B/39/2025 dated 01.03.2025 of 3'^'^ respondent passed under section 6 of Land Encroachment Act 1905 directing for eviction of the petitioners from the lands admeasuring Ac 0.90 cents in survey no 245/2 and Ac O.50cents in survey no 244/1 totaling an extent of Ac 1.40 cents of Thanapalli village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District,(But shown in the said impugned order as Ac 1.42 cents in survey no 245 of Thanapalli village) as being bad,' illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory in violation of principles of natural justice and and besides offending Articles 14 and 300-A of without jurisdiction Constitution of India and consequentially to set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances Petition stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be Roc.No.B/39/2025 dated pleased to suspend the operation of order i 01.03.2025 of 3 Encroachment Act 1905, enabling the petitioners to continue to cultivate the 245/2 and Ac 0.50 cents in in respondent, passed under section 6 of Land lands admeasuring Ac 0.90 cents in survey no survey no 244/1 totaling an extent of Ac 1.40 cents of Thanapalli village the said impugned Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District,(But shown in 245 of Thanapalli village), pending order as Ac 1.42 cents in survey no disposal of main Writ Petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI VENKATASUBBAIAHV Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010223612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11147/2025 Between: Penumallem Sreenivasulu Reddy and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.VENKATASUBBAIAH V Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the order in Roc.No.B/39/2025, dated 01.03.2025 of 3rd respondent passed under section 6 of Land Encroachment Act, 1905, directing for eviction of the petitioners from the lands admeasuring Ac.0.90 cents in survey no. 245/2 and Ac.0.5Ocents in survey no. 244/1 totaling an extent of Ac. 1.40 cents of Thanapalli village, Tirupatl Rural, Mandal Tirupathi District, But shown in the said impugned order as Ac.1.42 cents in survey no.245 of Thanapalli village as / \ being bad illegal arbitrary discriminatory in violation of principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction and besides offending Articles 14 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequentially to set aside the same and pass such other order or orders...” The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners got assigned the 2. subject land through DKT pattas in the years 1981 and 1982, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.90 cents in Survey No. 245/2 and Ac.0.50 cents in Survey No. 244/1, totaling an extent of Ac. 1.40 cents, situated at Thanapalli Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District. Since then, the petitioners have been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and cultivating it by growing mango trees and their names were also duly mutated in the revenue records. While so, to the utter surprise of the petitioners, the 3rd respondent issued a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, alleging that the petitioners were in illegal occupation of the subject land and directing them to submit their explanation and to attend an enquiry scheduled for 27.02.2025. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioners submitted their explanations dated 27.02.2025, explaining the nature of the alienation and their continuous possession. Although the 3rd respondent duly acknowledged the said explanation, without considering explanation of the petitioners, the 3rd respondent proceeded to issue an order under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dated 01.03.2025, directing for the eviction of the petitioners from their subject property. Furthermore, the order issued under Section 6 falsely states that the petitioners neither appeared nor submitted any explanation, which is contrary to the acknowledgment dated 27.02.2025 made by the respondent authorities. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that it 3. is a settled proposition of law, as reiterated by this Hon’ble Court time and again, that once an explanation is submitted in pursuance of a notice issued under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, the concerned authority, i.e., the 3rd respondent, is required to act as an quasi judicial authority and to duly consider the explanation in all its aspects and to give cogent reasons to proceed further and thereafter issue further proceedings under Section 6 of the said Act. However, in the present case, it appears that no such consideration was given and there is no whisper about the contents of explanation. On the contrary, the impugned order falsely states that the petitioners neither appeared nor submitted any explanation. This is contrary to the record, as the explanation submitted by the petitioners on 27.02.2025 was duly received and acknowledged by the respondent. Therefore, the impugned proceedings issued under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act 1905, are liable to be set aside for being irregular, arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, this writ petition. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits 4. that, as per the settled legal position laid down by this Hon’ble Court, any order passed under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, must be supported by cogent reasons and should reflect due consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioners in pursuance of the notice under Section 7. In the absence of such consideration, the impugned proceedings ^ are liable to be examined in accordance with law. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents, it is a settled proposition of law that no order under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, can be passed without assigning reasons, especially when an explanation has been submitted by the petitioner and same is acknowledged. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 27.02.2025, which was duly acknowledged by the office of the 3rd respondent. However, the issuance of the eviction order under Section 6 of the Act by the 3rd respondent, as if no explanation was submitted, is materially contrary to the facts on record. Moreover, the action of the 3rd respondent is clearly in violation of the principles laid down by this Hon’ble Court, as held that the authority while acting under Section 7 and 6 of the Act is Quasi Judicial in nature. Once any explanation or objections received against notice/proceedings, it is the mandatory duty of the Quasi Judicial Authority to consider the explanation and its contents and deal with them and determine the issue/dispute by giving cogent reasons, without considering the explanation and without giving reasons and passing order eviction under Section 6 of the Act is contrary to the object of the scheme apart from principle of Fair and Reasonableness. In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned proceedings issued under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, are hereby set aside. However, the 3rd respondent is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law. 7. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. Sdl- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTIWOFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, at Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupathi. 3. The Tahsildar, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupathi. 4. One CC to Sri Venkatasubbaiah V, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Three CD Copies. ssb a HIGH COURT DATED:29/04/2025 i 30 MAY 2025 S Wieiu jjagouii . ORDER WP.No.11147 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS