APHC010526922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [0] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 27078 of 2025 Between: 1. DUDEKULA KASIM, S/O. JANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE R/O. VISWANADHAPURAM, TRIPURANTHAKAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 2. DUDEKULA THANGELLA KASIM, S/O. JANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. ARMY PERSON, R/O. VISWANADHAPURAM, TRIPURANTHAKAM MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASM DISTRICT, AT ONGOLE 3. THETAHSILDAR, TRIPURANTAKAM MANDAL, AT TRIPURANTHAKAM ...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 to issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 to call for the explanation by issuing two notices RCA/A/129/2025, dt. 16-09-2025 on Petitioners seperately under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Act No.3 of 1905 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Article 14, 20, 21, 300A of the Constitution of India and also against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the 2 Respondent No.3 not to initiate any enquiry under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Act No.3 of 1905 as stated in two notices RCA/A/129/2025, dt. 16-09-2025 on Petitioners seperately under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Act No.3 of 1905. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GEDDADA SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “… issue a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 to call for the explanation by issuing two notices RCA/A/129/2025, dt.16-09-2025 on Petitioners separately under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Act No.3 of 1905 is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violation of Article 14, 20, 21, 300A of the Constitution of India and also against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 not to initiate any enquiry under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Act No.3 of 1905 as stated in two notices RCA/A/129/2025, dt.16-09-2025 on Petitioners separately under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Act No.3 of 1905 and pass such other order or orders ….” 2. Assailing the impugned notice dated 16.09.2025 issued under Section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short Act), the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. The 3rd respondent – Tahsildar issued the impugned notice dated 16.09.2025 to appear on 01.10.2025 directly in person or in writing under Section 3(i) of the Act. The notice that indicates that the petitioners have encroached the land of Ac.0.50 cents paddy and Acs.2.50 cents was fenced to harvest in LPM No.170 (Old Sy.No.383/1) of Vishwanadapuram village, which land belongs to the government. 4. Learned State Counsel would submit that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the show cause notice. 5. 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 4 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.” 6. After hearing both learned counsel for the petitioners and learned State Counsel, this Court has determined that the above referred judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case and it is appropriate to consider the Writ Petition at the admission stage with the consent of both parties. 1 2002 (6) ALD 83 AP 5 7. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to submit explanation to the impugned notice within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on submitting such explanation, the respondents are directed to examine the explanation submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioners. Till the decision is taken, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners’ property. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 26.09.2025 siva 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.27078 of 2025 Date: 26.09.2025 siva