1 APHC010100512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 5144/2025 Between: 1. TADI SAI BABU, S/O. CHENCHU SUBBAIAH, AGED 78 YEARS, OCC TEA SELLER, R/O. 2-405/7-2, INDIRA COLONY, 3RD LINE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523001. 2. SUDDAPALLI MAHESH BABU, , S/O. SUBBARAJU, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O. 42-105-580, INDIRA COLONY, 5TH LINE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523001. 3. CHINIGE RAJAKUMARI,, W/O. BALAJI, AGED 46 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O. 2-449, INDIRA COLONY, KOTHAPATNAM- MARG, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523001. 4. KANUMURI JYOTHI,, W/O. LATE KUTUMBA RAO, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O. 10-143, INDIRA- COLONY, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523001. 5. MEESALA BALAJI,, S/O. MUCCHALU, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/O. 11-45, INDIRA COLONY, NEAR FCI GUDEM ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523001. 6. GEORGE MERCY,, C/O. JOSEF THIYODER, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O. 51-1-2, ESOL PRAYER HOUSE, KLOSHUPET, 1ST LINE, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523001. 7. KANUMURI NARAYANA, , S/O. RAMAIAH, AGED 54 YEARS OCC COOLIE, R/O. 00-083, INDIRA COLONY, KP ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT- 523001. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 2 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE REVENUE DIVISION AT ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, ONGOLE MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Smt. 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 has drawn the attention of this Court to the Notices issued by the Official Respondents under Section 7 of the Madras Act (at pages 74, 76, 78 & 80). Learned Counsel would submit that the Notices itself are issued to the Writ Petitioners under wrong statute. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would also submit that the Writ Petitioners are not the encroachers and that they are the assignees, who have been assigned House Site Pattas (Ex.P.1). Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, therefore, would submit that the case of the Writ Petitioners is covered by the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and Anr : (1982) 2 SCC 134. 3. Having regard to the submission of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the Notices issued under Section 7 of the Madras Act are per se illegal, this Court is of the opinion that the issuance of Notices under an 3 incorrect statute goes to the very root of the matter. Accordingly, the Notices dated 09.12.2024 issued under Section 7 of the Madras Act, are set-aside. As a necessary consequence, the subsequent Notices dated 11.02.2025 issued under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment, are also set aside. 4. Needless to state that the Official Respondents are at liberty to issue fresh Notices under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, if so advised. 5. Writ Petitioners are at liberty to place reliance on the D-form Pattas, as mentioned in para 4 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. Needless to state that the Official Respondents shall also consider the legal effect of the dictum in Thummala Krishan Rao’s case. 6. Writ Petition is allowed with the above observations and directions. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 28.02.2025 Vns