APHC010086012025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA WRIT Between: 1. MANCHI PRAMILA RANI, W/O. DURGACHARI OCC CULTIVATION KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. 2. JAMPALA NAGARAJU,, S/O. VENKANNA, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT AT ELURU (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDYGUDEM REVENUE DIVISION GODAVARI DISTRICT). 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 4772/2025 MANCHI PRAMILA RANI, W/O. DURGACHARI, AGED 37 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.5-24, ADAMILLI VILLAGE, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. JAMPALA NAGARAJU,, S/O. VENKANNA, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. ADAMILLI VILLAGE, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO , REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT AT ELURU (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDYGUDEM REVENUE DIVISION, ELURU DISTRICT (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). THE TAHSILDAR, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3328] FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA 37 YEARS, 24, ADAMILLI VILLAGE, JAMPALA NAGARAJU,, S/O. VENKANNA, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC ADAMILLI VILLAGE, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT AT ELURU THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDYGUDEM DISTRICT (FORMERLY WEST ELURU DISTRICT THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KAMAVARAPUKOTA MANDAL, ELURU ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri K. Arjun Chowdhary, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue. 2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners submits that the Tahsildar of Kamavarapukota Mandal (Respondent No.4) has issued a Notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short, ‘the Act’), on 20.01.2025, directing the Writ Petitioners to submit an Explanation within seven days (Ex.P.2). The Writ Petitioners have submitted an Explanation on 22.01.2025 (Ex.P.3). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners further submits that the Impugned Notice, which was issued under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, on 03.02.2025 (Ex.P.1), does not indicate that the Official Respondents have considered the Explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioners on 22.01.2025. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Impugned Order dated 03.02.2025 (Ex.P.1) was passed in a mechanical manner, without proper application of mind, and the same vitiates the principles of natural justice. 3. This Court has perused the Impugned Order dated 03.02.2025 (Ex.P.1) passed by the Tahsildar (Respondent No.4). It appears to this Court that the Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) has not taken into consideration the Explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioners dated 22.01.2025. 4. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of the Tahsildar, inasmuch as 3 the Explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioners on 22.01.2025 has not been considered. 5. It appears that the issuance of the Notice under Section 7 of the Act on 20.01.2025 is merely an eye-wash, inasmuch as the Tahsildar never intended to consider the Representation of the Writ Petitioners at all but had already pre-decided to issue the Notice under Section 6, directing the Writ Petitioner to vacate the premises. 6. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the Impugned Order dated 03.02.2025 (Ex.P.1) suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the Tahsildar did not consider the Explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioners in response to his Notice under Section 7 of the Act. 7. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 03.02.2025 (Ex.P.1) issued by the Tahsildar is set aside. 8. Liberty is given to the Official Respondents to proceed in accordance with law. 9. The Official Respondents are directed to pass a reasoned Order by considering the Explanation submitted by the Writ Petitioners on 22.01.2025 and communicate the same to the Writ Petitioners forthwith. 10 Needless to state that until the Explanation of the Writ Petitioners is considered and any fresh orders are passed, the Official Respondents shall not initiate any coercive steps against the Writ Petitioners. 11. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 12. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 24.02.2025 DSV