K.. J IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :; AMARAVAT (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH (§ ® TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7939 OF 2025 >1 Between: Paila Sanyasi Raju, S/o. Appalanaidu, 58 yrs, R/o. 3-47, Tanam Village, Paravada Mandal, Anakapalli District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. District Collector, Anakapalli District, Anakapalli. 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli Revenue Division, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District. 4. Tahsildar, Paravada Mandal, Paravada, Anakapalli District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4*'' respondent and revenue staff in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac. 0.665 cts in Sy. No. 86 (LPM No.365) of Tanam Village, Paravada mandal, Anakapalli District pursuant to the notice U/S 7 of Act of 3 /1905 reference Rc. No.47 /2025 / SA / Dt -02-2025 issued by the 4'*^ respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and also in violation of principles of natural justice consequently directing the 4''' respondent not to meddle with the said property of the petitioner. may in >3 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petitior^^under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstapce-S stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the possession and enjoyment of Ac. 0.665 cts in Sy. No.86 (LPM No. 365) of Tanam Village, Paravada mandal, Anakapalli District pursuant to the notice U/S 7 of Act of 3/1905 in reference Rc. No. 47 / 2025 / SA / Dt -02-2025 issued by the 4**^ respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T. V. S. PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010153632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 7939/2025 Between: R/0. 3-47 T.PAILA SANYASI RAJU, S/0. APPALANAIDU, 58 YRS TANAM VILLAGE, PARAVADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI REVENUE DIVISION, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4.TAHSILDAR, PARAVADA MANDAL, PARAVADA, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1 .T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE f7 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 writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent and revenue staff in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac. 0.665 cts in Sy. No. 86 (LPM NO. Paravada mandal, Anakapalli District pursuant to the notice U/S 7 of Act of 3 71905 in reference Rc. No. 47 7 2025 7 SA 7 Dt -02- 2025 issued by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and also violation of principles of natural justice consequently directing the 4th respondent not to meddle with the said property of the petitioner and pass” 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 is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.69 cents 365 ) of Tanam Village, in 2. in Survey No.86 of Tanam Village, Paravada Mandal, Anakapalli District, having acquired it through inheritance.. The petitioner has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same after the demise of his father. While things stood thus, the respondent No.4 has issued a notice dated 13.03.2025 under Section 7 of Act 3 of 1905 (Land Encroachment Act) directing the petitioner to file objections within 15 days stating that an extent of 0.665 cents is a government land and shown the petitioner as an encroacher. To the said notice, the petitioner filed objection on 18.03.2025 to the impugned notice dated 13.03.2025. Even after receipt of the reply/explanation submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice, without considering the same the 4*'^ respondent authorities are trying to interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property which is contrary to law. Hence, the writ petition. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, supported the action of the 4*^ respondent in issuing the impugned notice after determination of the nature of land and occupation without any valid 4. permission from the competent authority and also assessed in all respects and requested to dismiss the writ petition. 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 A.P. Land Encroachment Act, the respondent/ 5. \ Tahsildar is required to pass detailed order after affording opportunity reasonably to the petitioner, as held in the case Kadiyala Sudershan and others Vs. Government of Andhra PradeshL Section 7 of the Act envisages a show-cause notice pre- supposes that the competent authority has to deal with the explanation/objecti ons 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. 6. ^12013 (6) ALT 42 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 can be disposed of by directing the 4 respondent to consider the reply/explanation dated 18.03.2025 submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice dated 13.03.2025 under section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and pass appropriate orders within two (02) months thereafter. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. th 8. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Guntur District. District Collector, Anakapalli District, Anakapalli. Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli Revenue Division, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District. Tahsildar, Paravada Mandal, Paravada, Anakapalli District. One CC to Sri T. V. S. Prabhakara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:27/03/2025 ORDER xy WP.No.7939 of 2025 5 2 1 JUN 3- ★ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS