APHC010551222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28409 of 2025 Between: 1. APPOLU LAKSHMI, W/O A.ASIREDDY AGED 50 YEARS, R/O AT MONAPALEM VILLAGE PUDILAYADORUVU POST, VAKADU MANDAL. TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT, OF REVENUE , SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI 3. THE SUBCOLLECTOR CUM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUDUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDHAR, VAKADU VAKADU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 5. MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, VAKADU VAKADU MANDAL, TIRUPATI 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 to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, order or orders declaring the action of the 4th respondent herein in issued the notice under sec. 6 of the APLE Act 3 of 1905 dt.07-10-2025 vide Rc.No.B.328/2025 directed me to vacate the land within 7 days in respect of an extent of extent of 448 sq.yards or 375 sq.meters covered by residential house in part and parcel of either in Sy.No.30 or in Sy.No.31 classified as Gramakantam or Dibbaporamboke situated at Pudirayadoruvu village accounts, Vakadu Mandal, Tirupati District, despite the petitioner submitted 2 written explanations dt.04-08-2025 and 22-09-2025 as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and void and violated the principles of natural justice and affected the petitioner's rights guaranteed under article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the notices dt.07-10-2025 in Rc.B.328/2025 and notice dt.28- 07-2025 vide Rc.B.328/2025 as illegal by consider my explanations dt.04-08-2025 and 22-09-2025 regarding her exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of 448 sq.yards or 375 sq.meters covered by residential house either in Sy.No.30 or in Sy.No.31 classified as Gramakantam or Dibbaporamboke situated at Pudirayadoruvu village accounts, Vakadu Mandal, Tirupati District. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY 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 for the following relief: "….. to issue a writ in the nature of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, order or orders declaring the action of the 4th respondent herein in issued the notice under Sec.6 of the APLE Act 3 of 1905 dt.07.10.2025 vide Rc.No.B.328/2025 directed me to vacate the land within 7 days in respect of an extent of extent of 448 sq.yards or 375 sq.meters covered by residential house in part and parcel of either in Sy.No.30 or in Sy.No.31 classified as Gramakantam or Dibbaporamboke situated at Pudirayadoruvu village accounts, Vakadu Mandal, Tirupati District, despite the petitioner submitted written explanations dt.04.08.2025 and 22.09.2025 as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction and void and violated the principles of natural justice and affected the petitioner's rights guaranteed under article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the notices dt.07.10.2025 in Rc.B.328/2025 and notice dt.28.07.2025 vide Rc.B.328/2025 as illegal by consider my explanations dt.04.08.2025 and 22.09.2025 regarding her exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of an extent of 448 sq.yards or 375 sq.meters covered by residential house either in Sy.No.30 or in Sy.No.31 classified as Gramakantam or Dibbaporamboke situated at Pudirayadoruvu village accounts, Vakadu Mandal, Tirupati District and pass other orders….." 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the notice dated 07.10.2025 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, ‘the Act’) on the ground that the 4th respondent issued the notice under Section 7 of the Act to the petitioner only at the instance of the 4 local leaders, issued the said notice illegally without jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice, as any encroachment of the government land at any point of time, except the petitioner is in exclusive peaceful possession and enjoyment of the gramakantam land covered by extent of 448 square yards or 375 square yards covered by residential house in Sy.Nos.30 or 31 classified as Dibbaporamboke or Gramakantam. 4. The petitioner herein submitted her explanation on 04.08.2025 and 22.09.2025 to the notice under Section 7 of the Act. Without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed and the order is bereft of reasons. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to set aside the order impugned in the present Writ Petition and the 4th respondent – Tahsildar may be directed to pass reasoned order and relied on the judgment of the common High Court in Kadiyala Sudershan and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2013 (5) ALD 212 held in the following manner: "The notice of eviction prescribed under Section 6 of the Act, which is akin to a decree, needs to be supported by a reasoned order comparable to a judgment. Otherwise, Section 7 of the Act providing for issuance of a show-cause notice would be rendered nugatory or reduced to an empty formality." 5 6. On reviewing the impugned order issued under Section 6 of the Act by the 4th respondent – Tahsildar, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is bereft of reasons. 7. As no reason has been assigned, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the 4th respondent – Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders assigning reasons after considering the explanations dated 04.08.2025 and 22.09.2025 offered by the petitioner, in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. 8. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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: 15.10.2025 siva 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28409 of 2025 Date: 15.10.2025 siva