APHC010451972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 26703/2025 Between: 1. S. MUNZIRA BANU, C/O S.KHAJAPEER, AGE 49 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO. 12, NEW VR AMBEDKAR COLONY UPPARAPALLI PANCHAYATHI, UPPARAPALLE, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT- 515002. 2. S.BATKIS BANU, W/O S BABA VALI, AGE 52 YEARS, R/O D.NO.13- 1-476-2, MG COLONY, ANANTAPUR, GEORGEPET, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-515004. 3. URUMULA LAXMI, W/O URUMULA RAJANNA, AGE 35 YEARS R/O D.NO.2/182, GUGUDU, GUGUDU, NARPALA, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-515425. 4. K.KAMAKSHI, C/O KAMSALA KRISHNACHARI, AGE 37 YEARS, R/O D.NO.6-2-596, KOVURU NAGAR, NEAR NAGULA KATTA, ANANTAPUR-515001. 5. KOLIMI SHAMEEM BEGUM, W/O KOLIMI AHAMMAD BASHA, AGE 46 YEARS R/O D.NO.4-2-764-4, JANASHAKTHI NAGAR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-515001. 6. P.SHAMSHAD, W/O P.MUNAF, AGE 48 YEARS, R/O D.NO.7/4/150, VENGAMA NAIDU COLONY ANANTAPUR RURAL DISTRICT- 515002. 7. GUJJALA YAMUNA, W/O GUJJALA NARAYANA SWAMY, AGE 36 YEARS, R/O CHAPATIA, RAPTHADU, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT- 515641. Page 2 of 7 8. LAKSHMI NARASAMMA, W/O GUJJALA NARAYANASWAMY, AGE 40 YEARS R/O D.NO.2-11A, SURACHANDRAPURAM, BATHALAPALLE, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-515661. 9. GUJJALA GANGADEVI, W/O G.RAMA KRISHNAIAH, AGE 49 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 12-714, ASHOK NAGAR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-515001. 10. KALLUMADI MADI PRAMEELA,, C/O KALLUMADI NARASIMHULU, AGE 52 YEARS R/O D.NO.12-25, KALLURU, GARLADINNE, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-515774. 11. B.LAKHSMI, C/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGE 56 YEARS, R/O D.NO.20- 335, AMBAPURAMU STREET, OLD TOWN, ANANTHAPURAMU- 515001. 12. KUNCHALA VARALAKSHMI, W/O KUNCHALA NARAYANA, AGE 34 YEARS, R/O 6/8, B PALLI, SINGANAMALA, ANANTAPUR-515701. 13. G.JAYAMMA, C/O G.RAMAKRISHNA, AGE 42 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 10/393, KALLUMADI, SIGANAMALA, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT-515611. 14. NASA RI LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O NASA RI VENKATESH, AGE 46 YEARS, R/O D.NO.L-IIIA, MUNTI MADUGU, GARLADINNE, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT-515774. 15. ANKE THULASI, W/O ANKE ADINARAYANA, AGE 46 YEARS. R/O D.NO.20-314-B, AMBARAPU STREET, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT- 515001. 16. KODURU SHOBHA, W/O KOUDAR, AGE 38 YEARS, R/O D.NO.3- 39, KALLUMADI, SINGANAMALA MANDALAM, ANANTHAPURAM- 515435. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANANTHAPURAMU. Page 3 of 7 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANATHAPURAMU DIVISION, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ANANTHAPURAMU MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, UPPARAPALLI VILLAGE, ANANTHAPURAMU RURAL MANDAL, ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, challenging the action of the Respondents in trying to dispossess the Petitioners in pursuant to notices issued on 23.05.2025 and 24.05.2025 without considering the explanation submitted by the Petitioners on 09.06.2025 and without considering Petitioners long-standing possession and peaceful enjoyment of the land in Survey No.215, at Upparapalli Village, Polam, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents to allot permanent house sites to the Petitioners before dispossessing them from the subject properties in Survey No.215, at Upparapalli Village, Polam, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal, Ananthapuramu District IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents No.2 to 4 not to dispossess the Petitioners from their properties in Survey No.215, at Upparapalli Village, Polam, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. ARUN SHOWRI G Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.26703 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, challenging the action of the Respondents in trying to dispossess the Petitioners in pursuant to notices issued on 23.05.2025 and 24.05.2025 without considering the explanation submitted by the Petitioners on 09.06.2025 and without considering Petitioners long-standing possession and peaceful enjoyment of the land in Survey No.215, at Upparapalli Village, Polam, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal, Ananthapuramu District, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondents to allot permanent house sites to the Petitioners before dispossessing them from the subject properties in Survey No.215, at Upparapalli Village, Polam, Ananthapuramu Rural Mandal, Ananthapuramu District and pass…” 2. The 4th respondent-Tahsildar issued eviction notices dated 23.05.2025 & 24.05.2025 under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter for short referred as the ‘Act’), directing the petitioners to submit an explanation on or before 10.06.2025, as to why they should be evicted from the Government land. In pursuance of the said notices, the petitioners submitted an explanation. However, the 4th respondent has not considered the same. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri G. Arun Showri, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that admittedly, the petitioners’ submitted explanation to the aforementioned notices and it would suffice if a direction is given to the respondent No.4 to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader does not refute the said submissions. 6. The procedure contemplated under Section 6 of the Act, to hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case, means not to evict forcibly without taking into consideration the explanation offered by the encroachers. To fortify the said contention, this Court places reliance of the judgment of the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Pre. Jothi Education Society vs Secretary, Major Irrigation1. The Division Bench of the High Court held in the following: “Since the respondents passed the order under Section 6 of the Encroachment Act on 28.4.2001 without considering the objections of the petitioner, in order to meet the ends of justice, the order passed by the respondents under Section 6 of the Encroachment Act on 28.4.2001 has to be set aside and we do so. Since we have held that the notice dated 18.4.2001 issued by the respondents under Section 7 of the Encroachment Act is a proper notice and the objections filed by the petitioner on 30.4.2001 have not been considered, we permit the respondents to pass appropriate order in the light of the objections filed on 30.4.2001 by the petitioner to the Sec.7 notice, according to law. Pending a decision by the respondents as directed by us, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner by the respondents.” 1 2002 (6) ALD 83 A 7. After hearing both learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel, the above referred judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. 8. In view of the above submissions, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the present Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage, directing the respondent No.4 to examine the explanation submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible. Till such time, respondent No.4 is directed not to take any coercive steps against subject property. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO Date: 25.09.2025 TVN 219 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.26703 OF 2025 Date: 25.09.2025 TVN