APHC010634132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 33308/2025 Between: 1. SYED RAWOOF BASHA, S/O. KHAJAMIYA, AGE 51 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.LO-953-B, MAKKA MAZID LINE MARKAPURAM TOWN, MARKAPURAM, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MARAKAPUR REVENUE DIVISION, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MARKAPUR MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): This Court made the following ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the Petitioners for the following relief: <to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Eviction Orders in R.C.No.A/593/2024, dt. 14.07.2025 issued under Section 6 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 3 of 1905 and its preceding Notice dt. 12.06.2025 issued under Section 7 thereof, issued by 4th respondent, in respect of petitioners house and site property admeasuring Ac.0.50 cents out of Ac.0.72 cents in Sy.No.176-1 situated at Peddanagulavaram Revenue Village of Markapur Mandal in Prakasam District, without considering his objections/explanation dt. 28.06.2025, as illegal, irregular, arbitrarily, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and offends articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with his possession and enjoyment over his said landed property and pass…= 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the subject property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.72 cents in Sy. No.176/1 situated at Peddanagulavaram Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District, having acquired the same under a possessory agreement of sale dated 14.06.2010. It is further submitted that Sy.No.176/1 was subdivided in the year 1923 and, as per the R.H. Register, the land covered under Sy. No.176/1 is classified as patta land. He further submits that the names of the petitioner’s vendor and the vendor’s vendor were duly mutated in the manual Adangal and Pahani records, and thereafter, the petitioner’s name was also mutated in the manual Pattadar Passbooks. While things stood thus, the 4th respondent issued a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dated 12.06.2025, alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon land admeasuring Ac.0.25 cents, Ac.0.06 cents, and Ac.0.50 cents covered by Sy. Nos. 173-1A, 173-2, and 176-1 respectively. For which, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation to the said notice on 28.06.2025. However, thereafter, the 4th respondent issued another notice under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dated 14.07.2025, alleging that the petitioner had encroached upon the aforesaid land, which is stated to be classified as vaagu/smasanam belonging to the Government, and unilaterally directed the petitioner to vacate the land within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the said notice. Even after receipt of the petitioner’s explanation, the respondent authorities, without considering the explanation/objections submitted by the petitioner, proceeded to issue the impugned notice, which action is illegal, arbitrary, and also contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Hence the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue, supported the action of the 4th 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 A.P. Land Encroachment Act, the respondent/ 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 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. 7. Considering the submissions made and upon a perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 14.07.2025 and the matter is remanded to the 4th respondent to consider the objections filed by the petitioner dated 28.06.2025, pursuant to the notice dated 12.06.2025, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 14.07.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. 1 1 2013 (6) ALT 42 Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE D. RAMESH 01.12.2025 klk 312 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.33308 of 2025 01.12.2025 kkllkk