APHC010096662025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 5326/2025 Between: R Jayarami Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.B.214(1)/2024, dated 25.01.2025 issued by the 4th respondent under section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 with respect to the land of the petitioner admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.555 of Bommavaram Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, consequently set aside the proceedings in Rc.B.214(1)/2024, dated 25.01.2025 issued by the 4th respondent and direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the lands of the petitioner admeasuring an extent of an extent of Ac.2.30 cents in Sy.No.555 of Bommavaram Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal,l SPSR Nellore District and to pass such other order or orders...” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in occupation of land admeasuring Ac. 2.30 cents in Sy.No.555 of Bommavaram village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, for the past 20 years, by eking out his livelihood through agricultural operations in respect of the subject land. While things stood thus, the respondent No.4 herein issued a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, stating that the petitioner had encroached the subject land and was cultivating it without any vested legal right. In pursuance of the said notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 07.10.2024, and the same was sent via registered post. However, despite receiving the explanation, the respondent authorities, without considering its contents, proceeded as if no explanation had been submitted. Consequently, they passed the impugned order dated 25.01.2025, holding that the petitioner had encroached the subject land and ordered the demolition of illegal constructions allegedly made by the petitioner. Hence the writ petition. 3. He further submits that, despite the petitioner submitting a detailed explanation dated 07.10.2024, the respondents authorities passed the impugned order without considering the explanation of the petitioner, which is contrary to law and the principles of fair and reasonableness on the part of the public authority. Hence, the impugned proceedings dated 25.01.2025 are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing for the respondents, submits that the petitioner submitted an explanation via registered post dated 07.10.2024. However, the 4th respondent passed the impugned order on 25.01.2025 without considering the explanation, treating it as if no explanation had been submitted under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Therefore, there is a need for a direction to remand the matter for fresh consideration by taking account the petitioner’s explanation. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents failed to consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 07.10.2024 in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dated 03.09.2024. It is further observed that the impugned proceedings dated 25.01.2025 were issued without considering the petitioner’s explanation, which is contrary to the settled principles of law, particularly the requirement of fair and reasonableness on the part of the authorities while passing orders. 7. In view of the reasons stated above, the impugned proceedings dated 25.01.2025 is hereby set aside. However, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner’s explanation dated 07.10.2024 and shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering any documents submitted if any by the petitioner within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the meantime, the respondents shall not interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. 8. With the above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. ______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 05.03.2025 kkllkk 177 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION No.5326 of 2025 05.03.2025 kkllkk