1 APHC010712732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 36451/2025 Between: 1. BOYA PARVATHI, W/O. LATE EERANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC DAILY LABOUR, R/O. VENGALAPURAM VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 522237. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KURNOOL DISTRICT, KURNOOL,518001 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ADONI, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 518301 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ADONI MANDAL, ADONI. 518301 5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, VENGALAPURAM VILLAGE, ADONI MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 518302 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.36451 of 2025 ORDER: Aggrieved by the notice dated 11.12.2025 issued under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by the 4th respondent (for short, ‘the Act’), the present writ petition is filed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though in the impugned notice, it is mentioned as Section 7 of the Act, the content of the notice is like an order under Section 6 of the Act. Without conducting an enquiry and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner, straightaway declared that the petitioner is an encroacher and directed to remove the encroachment within seven days, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act and also the orders passed by the Hon’ble 4 Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao1. 4. Considering the said submissions and also on perusal of the notice, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, it shows that the 4th respondent is not even care to verify the impugned notice. In fact, as per Section 7 of the Act, the authorities have to identify the encroachment and with full particulars, if required, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, then the respondents have to pass an order under Section 6 of the Act. In the instant notice, without doing so, straightaway directed the petitioner to remove the encroachment and even the 4th respondent has not made any specific averment with regard to extent of encroachment made by the petitioner. 5. Considering the submissions and as the impugned notice dated 11.12.2025 is contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment, the same is set aside giving liberty to the 4th respondent to initiate fresh action in accordance with law. 1 (1982) 2 SCC 134 5 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 29.12.2025 Ivd 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.36451 of 2025 Dated: 29.12.2025 Ivd