APHC010091242025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5161/2025 Between: Sadineni Madan, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KOTI REDDY IDAMAKANTI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5161/2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dated 17.01.2025 and the consequential order dated 01.02.2025 issued under Section 6 of the 1905 Madras Act No.3 of the 3rd respondent with regard to the vacant site to an extent of Ac.0.06 Cents situated in Sy.No.191/2-2 of Musunuru Village, Kavali Mandal, SPSR Nellore District is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and pass such other order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the brother of the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.11 cents in Sy.No.191/1-2 of Musunuru Village, Kavali Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, having acquired the same through registered sale deed in the year 2008 from his original owner/vendor, who inturn acquired the subject property in the year 1998 and 1990 respectively. Since then, the brother of the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the original owner of the property i.e., the brother of the petitioner resides at USA, authorized the petitioner, being the blood relative for challenging the impugned order dated 01.02.2025. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.3 issued an encroachment notice dated 17.01.2025 under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 alleging that the brother of the petitioner encroached/occupied the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in survey No.191/2-2. For which, the petitioner submitted detailed explanation on 23.01.2025. But without considering the same, the 3rd respondent passed an order on 01.02.2025 under Section 6 of the Madras Encroachment Act, 1905, contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act under which the show-cause notice was issued. Therefore, the impugned order under Section 6 of the Madras Act is illegal and contrary to their own show-cause notice dated 17.01.2025. 6. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that the 3rd respondent having ignored the fact that the show-cause notice was issued under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and passing an order under Section 6 of the Madras Act, 1905 is contrary to the law as well as show-cause notice. He further pleaded that by setting aside the order dated 4 01.02.2025, remand the matter to the 3rd respondent for fresh consideration. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, it is observed that the order under Section 6 of the Madras Act, 1905 is contrary to the terms of the show-cause notice dated 17.01.2025, which was issued under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. It is further observed that once the 3rd respondent initiated proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by way of show-cause notice, he should proceed further under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, only, but not contrary to the terms of the show- cause notice. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even after receipt of the detailed explanation as submitted by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent neither considered the explanation nor provided any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner while passing the order under Section 6 of the Madras Act is in violation of principles of natural justice is valid and sustainable. Hence, the impugned order dated 01.02.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the order dated 01.02.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent 5 under Section 6 of the Madras Act, 1905. However, the 3rd respondent is at liberty to proceed further pursuant to the show- cause notice dated 17.01.2025 by considering the explanation of the petitioner and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 03.03.2025 TTPPSS 6 83 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5161 of 2025 03.03.2025 TTPPSS