Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 54103 (AP)

ALAKUNTA SRIHARI v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/23132/2025 · 2025-09-24

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010453752025 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: 23132/2025 Between: 1. ALAKUNTA SRIHARI, S/O ALAKUNTA VENKATA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O B C COLONY, GUNDAVOLU, RAPUR MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 524414 2. ALAKUNTA PAPAIAH,, S/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O B C COLONY, GUNDAVOLU, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 524414 3. ALAKUNTA RAKESH, S/O PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O B C COLONY, GUNDAVOLU, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 524414 4. KOPPALA ANKESH, , S/O KOPPALA ANKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O HARIJANAWADA, GUNDAVOLU RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 524414 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY (REVENUE). SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTORCUMMAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE COMPOUND, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NELLORE DIVISION, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. Page 2 of 6 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAPUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE 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 any writ or direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the notice issued under Section 6 of the AP Land Encroachment Act vide Rc.B.26/2025 dated 12-08- 2025 by the 4th Respondent without considering the orders passed in WP No. 17723/2025 dated 15-07-2025 and the explanation submitted by the petitioners dated 18-02-2025 are trying to dispossess the writ petitioners 1 and 2 for an extent of AC. 2-87 cents (Ac. 1-02 cents under DKT) in Sy.No. 437/4, 5 and 6 AC. 0-95 cents in Sy.No. 437/3 granted under DKT by 2nd Respondent on 06-10-1976 Petitioners 3 and 4 for an extent of AC. 1-40 cents in Sy.No. 438 and AC. 1-50 cents in Sy.No. 438 of dry land respectively which is in their occupation situated in Gundavolu Village, Rapuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District without following due process of law from the possession and enjoyment as illegal, arbitrary. devoid of jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to pass appropriate orders after considering the representations dated 18-08-2025 and 18-02-2025 and pass 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 restraining the Respondents from illegal dispossession of the writ petitioners 1 and 2 for an extent of AC. 2-87 cents (Ac.1-02 cents under DKT) in Sy.No. 437/4, 5 & 6; AC. 0-95 cents in Sy.No. 437/3 granted under DKT by 2nd Respondent on 06-10-1976; Petitioners 3 and 4 for an extent of AC.1-40 cents in Sy.No. 438 and AC. 1-50 cents in Sy.No. 438 of dry land which is in their occupation situated in Gundavolu Village Rapur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the writ petitioners pending disposal of the writ petition, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T G PRASAD REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23132 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue any writ or direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the notice issued under Section 6 of the AP Land Encroachment Act vide Rc.B.26/2025 dated 12-08-2025 by the 4th Respondent without considering the orders passed in WP No. 17723/2025 dated 15-07-2025 and the explanation submitted by the petitioners dated 18-02-2025 are trying to dispossess the writ petitioners 1 and 2 for an extent of AC. 2-87 cents (Ac. 1-02 cents under DKT) in Sy.No. 437/4, 5 and 6 AC. 0-95 cents in Sy.No. 437/3 granted under DKT by 2nd Respondent on 06- 10-1976 Petitioners 3 and 4 for an extent of AC. 1-40 cents in Sy.No. 438 and AC. 1-50 cents in Sy.No. 438 of dry land respectively which is in their occupation situated in Gundavolu Village, Rapuru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District without following due process of law from the possession and enjoyment as illegal, arbitrary. devoid of jurisdiction and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to pass appropriate orders after considering the representations dated 18-08-2025 and 18-02-2025 and pass…” 2. Initially, the petitioners filed W.P.No.17723 of 2025 questioning the eviction notice dated 13.02.2025 issued by the 4th respondent-Tahsildar under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter for short referred as the ‘Act’), wherein this Court directed the 4th respondent therein to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. Without considering the same, the 4th respondent passed an order under Section 6 of the Act, directing the petitioners to vacate the land within 7 days from the date of service of notice. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an explanation dated 18.08.2025. However, the same has not been considered. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri T.G. Prasad Reddy, 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 1 2002 (6) ALD 83 A 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.” 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 RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 25.09.2025 TVN 219 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23132 OF 2025 Date: 25.09.2025 TVN