APHC010678532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 1360/2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to this Hon'ble court to allow the instant appeal by setting aside the Order dated 14.11.2025 in W.P.No.31779 of 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court and/or pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Between: 1. MULPURI AGRO TECH PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MULPURI LAKSHMANA SWAMY, S/O VENKATESWARARAO, R/O D.NO.12-136, RAMANAGARAM VILLAGE, CHALLAPALLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALNADU DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE BUILDINGS, PALNADU DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VINUKONDA MANDAL PALNADU DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BRAHMANAPALLI VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 2 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.1360 of 2025 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BRAHMANAPALLI VILLAGE, VINUKONDA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. 6. THE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, VINUKONDA MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 herein not to dispossess the Appellant from property admeasuring Ac.0.79 Cts in Sy.No.60/16-1A, Ac.0.81 Cts in Sy.No.60/16-2A, Ac.1.85 Cts in Sy.No.60/16-3A, Ac.1.65 Cts in Sy.No.320-1, Ac.3.99 Cts in Sy.No.321-1. Ac. 1.18 Cts in Sy.No.321-2, Ac.0.15 Cts in Sy.No.321-7, Ac.1.24 Cts in Sy.No. 322-1, Ac. 1-26 Cts in Sy.No.322-2, Ac. 1.61 Cts in Sy.No.322-3 Ac.7.62 Cts in Sy.No.113-2C1-A1. Ac.2.25 Cts in Sy.No.113-2C1- A2. Ac.2.15 Cts in Sy.No.113-2C1-A3. Ac.1.43 Cts in Sy.No.113- 2C1-A4. Ac. 1.41 Cts in Sy.No.113-2C1-A8. Ac. 1.29 Cts in Sy.No.113-2C1-A12, Ac. 1.68 Cts in Sy.No.113-2C1-A15 (Totalling to an extent of Ac.32.16 Cts) situated at Brahmanapalli Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Palnadu District by suspending the Notice issued by the Respondent No.4 vide bearing Rc.No.1113/2023-A dated 10.11.2025 (Received on 13.11.2025), pending disposal of the Writ Appeal and/or pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. AKULA SRI KRISHNA SAI BHARGAV Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.1360 of 2025 The Court made the following Judgment: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The appellant herein claims ownership and possession over various extents of land, aggregating to Ac.32.16 cents of land in Brahmanapalli Village, Vinukonda Mandal, Palnadu District. The 4th respondent had initiated proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (here- in-after referred to as “the Act”), by way of issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Act. The appellant had been granted time till 09.11.2025 for filing his objections. However, the objections came to be filed on 11.11.2025. The 4th respondent had issued the impugned proceedings under Section 6 of the Act on 10.11.2025 and the same was received by the appellant on 13.11.2025. 2. The appellant, being aggrieved by the said order, had approached this Court, by way of W.P.No.31779 of 2025. The contention of the appellant was that his objections and the material produced by him in support of such objections had not been considered by the 4th respondent and the same affects the impugned order, dated 10.11.2025. 3. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by an order, dated 14.11.2025, had disposed of the Writ Petition on the ground of alternative remedy being available to the appellant. 4. The Writ Petition would be maintainable before this Court even where alternative remedy is available. However, this Court has placed certain self-imposed restrictions in taking up matters where alternative remedies are 4 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.1360 of 2025 available. This Court has always held that a Writ Petition would be maintainable in the event of violation of principles of natural justice or where proceedings have been passed without jurisdiction, apart from other grounds. 5. In the present case, it would not be appropriate for this Court to hold that there has been violation of principles of natural justice as the orders had been passed after the time granted to the petitioner had expired. 6. In the circumstances, we do not find reasons to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. However, it is made clear that the appellant would be permitted to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of three (03) weeks from today and would also be entitled to raise all objections along with such material as deemed necessary. The Appellate Authority, while disposing of the Appeal, shall take into consideration all such material placed before him. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J ________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J Date: 30.12.2025 MJA 5 RRR, J & TCDS, J W.A.No.1360 of 2025 194 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT APPEAL NO: 1360/2025 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) 30.12.2025 MJA