::1:: APHC010328102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16496/2025 Between: Sudhakar Vanguru ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE This Court made the following ORDER:- 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in issuing final notice of eviction vide Rc. B no 91 of 2025 dated 23.06.2025 terming it as Section 6 of A.P Land Encroachment Act without properly considering the representation of petitioner in pursuant to notice vide Rc. B no 91 of 2025 dated 23.06.2025 as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of AP Land Encroachment Act and offends Art 14, 19, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from his land with an extent of Ac 3.47 cents in Sy.no. 248 of Nallapalem Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District and pass... 2 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural landed property admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.47 cents in Sy.No.248, situated at Nallapalem Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, having inherited the same from his ancestors. The petitioner was issued a Pattadar Passbook and Title Deeds in respect of the subject property, and his name was duly mutated in the revenue records. The subject land had been under cultivation of the petitioner’s ancestors for more than 50 years, thereafter, the petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land and carrying the agricultural operations. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 09.06.2025 under Section 7 of the Madras Encroachment Act, 1905, alleging that the petitioner had encroached the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3.47 cents in Sy.No.248 of Nallapalem Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Immediately, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 3 11.06.2025 to the 3rd respondent. Even after receipt of the reply/explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 11.06.2025, pursuant to the impugned notice dated 09.06.2025, the 3rd respondent, without considering the same, again issued a final notice dated 23.06.2025 and is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and trying to evict the petitioner from his land, which is contrary to law. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 23.06.2025 is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, supported the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned notice after determination of the nature of land and occupation without any valid permission from the competent authority and also assessed in all respects and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Even assuming for a moment that this petitioner is an encroacher, who is allegedly in unauthorized possession of the property, still after issuing notice under Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, the respondent/ Tahsildar is required to pass detailed order after affording opportunity reasonably to the 4 petitioner, as held in the case Kadiyala Sudershan and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh1. 6. Section 7 of the Act envisages a show-cause notice pre- supposes that the competent authority has to deal with the explanation/objections filed by the person in possession of the land. Unless a reasoned order is passed, the person in occupation of the land does not know as to why an order of eviction is passed against him. Unless the order contains reasons, the appellate authority will not be in a position to examine the validity or otherwise of the order and decide the appeal. Moreover, the section 7 notice is also issued under Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1906, which is not valid. Therefore, the entire action as initiated by the respondents is contrary to law. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents submits that, this court is of the considered view that, the present writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned notices dated 09.06.2025 and 23.06.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. Therefore, the 3rd respondent is at liberty to proceed further under the 1 1 2013 (6) ALT 42 5 provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, (instead of Madras Act) by following due procedure as contemplated and also by observing principles of natural justice. 8. With the above direction, writ petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. _____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 04.07.2025 klk 6 305 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.16496 of 2025 04.07.2025 klk