APHC010536392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 27857/2025 Between: 1. KUNA UMA SHANKAR,, S/O KUNA JAGADISH, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, MOTHER, SMT. KUNA SAILAJA, W/O KUNA JAGADISH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. AGRICULTURIST, D.NO- 16-1-109, GOSABAVI STREET, RAYADURG TOWN, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT, ANANTAPURAMU. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KALYANADURG DIVISION, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAYADURGAM MANDAL, RAYADURGAM, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. 5. NAYAKUAL PADMAVATHI, W/O. NAYAKULA LAKSHMANNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. OBULACHARI ROAD, RAYADURG TOWN, ANANTAPURAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice bearing No. 517/2025, dated 17.09.2025, issued by the 4th Respondent under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in respect of the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac. 5.47 cents in Sy.No.334-2 of Mallapuram Village, Rayadurgam Mandal, Anantapuramu District as being illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and Consequently, direct the Respondents, their subordinates, and agents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the Schedule Property 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 to suspend all further proceedings pursuant to the notice bearing No.517/2025, dated 17.09.2025, issued by the 4th Respondent, and direct the Respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject Property pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AYESHA AZMA S Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.27857 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice bearing No.517/2025, dated 17.09.2025, issued by the 4th Respondent under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in respect of the petitioner's land admeasuring Ac.5.47 cents in Sy.No.334-2 of Mallapuram Village, Rayadurgam Mandal, Anantapuramu District as being illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Consequently, direct the Respondents, their subordinates, and agents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner over the Schedule Property and pass ……” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. It is asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the 4th respondent issued notice vide Rc.No.517/2025, dated 17.09.2025, under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter for short referred as the „Act‟) alleging that the petitioner has unauthorizedly occupied Ac.5.47 cents in Survey No.334-2 situated in Mallapuram Village, Rayadurgam Mandal, Ananthapuram District. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner has submitted explanation on 29.09.2025. Without 4 considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the respondents are trying to evict/dispossess the petitioner from the subject property. 4. Learned State counsel would submit that the explanation offered by the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law. 5. The procedure contemplated under Section 6 of the Act is 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. 6. To fortify the said contention, this Court places reliance on 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 manner: “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 1 2002 (6) ALD 83 AP 5 coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner by the respondents.” 7. After hearing both learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel, the above referred judgment is squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. 8. Hence, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to examine the explanation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioner. 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, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 10.10.2025 Pmk 6 50 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No:27857 OF 2025 Date: 10.10.2025 Pmk