IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6639 OF 2020 i] oom Between: Koya Venkata Madhusudhana Prasad, S/o. Late Subbarao, Rep.by its GPA Holder, Smt. Koya Kanchanamala, W/o.Late Subbarao, Aged about 50 years, Occ; Household, R/o.Power Peta, Eluru City, Eluru, West Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District. 2. District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 3. Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru Revenue Division, Eluru city, West Godavari District. 4. Tahsildar, T.Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that ih the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents i insisting the petitioner's to vacate from agricultural landed Ac.0.30 cents in Survey Number 136 it is only to reach ingress and egress to the petitioner's agricultural landed properties of Ac.0.58 cents in Survey Number 137-2B, Ac.5.21 cents in Survey Number 138, Ac.3.66 cents in Survey Number 139 and Ac.8.40 cents in Survey Number 140-2 situated in properties in T.Narasapuram Village and Mandal of West Godavari District, and also un-dated notice issued under section 6 of Andhra Pradesh Land encroachment act 1905, without issuing Section 7 notice, as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Land encroachment act 1905 and offends Articles 14. 21 and 300-A of constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioner's said house and site properties. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of un-dated notice issued under section 6 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905 by the 4*^ respondent and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any mannef with the petitioner's possession over her agricultural landed properties o? Ac.0.58 cents in Survey Number 137-2B, Ac. 5.21 cents in Survey Number 138, Ac.3.66 cents in Survey Number 139 and Ac. 8.40 cents in Survey Number 140-2,situated in T.Narasapuram Village and Mandal of West Godavari District, pending disposal of the main writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Between: 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru Revenue Division, Eluru city. West Godavari District. ^ 4. The Tahsildar, T.Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. ...PETITIONERS AND Koya Venkata Madhusudhana Prasad, S/o. Late Subbarao, Rep. by its GPA Holder, Smt. Koya Kanchanamala, W/o.Late Subbarao, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Household, R/o.Power Peta, Eluru City, Eluru, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders granted on 17-03-2020 in WP.No.6639/2020 and dismiss the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER T APHC010108522020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 6639/2020 Between: Koya Venkata Madhusudhana Prasad ...Petitioner AND ...Respondents State of Andhra Pradesh and others Counsel for the Petitioner: I.Sita Ram Chaparla Counsel for the Respondents: 1.GP for Revenue (AP) The Court made the following order: Challenging the proceedings of the 4*^ respondent issued under Section 6 of Andhra Pradesh land encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred as the Act’), the present writ petition is filed. Heard Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. learned Assistant Government pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner has been using the subject land, in an 3. extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.136, for ingress and agress to his agricultural lands, which are in an extent of Ac.C*.§8.cents in Sy.No.137-2B, Ac.5.21 cents 2 KM,j W.P.No.6639 of 2020 in Sy.No.138, Ac.3.66 cents in Sy.No.139, and Ac.8.40 cents in Sy.No.140-2 situated in T.Narasapuram Village and Mandal of West Godavari District. 4. It is contended that the impugned proceedings have been passed without issuing any notice contemplated under Section 7 of the Act, which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is argued that since it is not in accordance with the statutory provisions, the same is illegal. Learned counsel further relies on the decision of this Court reported in Kadiyala Sudershan vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh^ and on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.1833 of 2024. This Court in Kadiyala Sudershan (supra) has observed as under: "5. A person in possession of the Government iand is liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Act The Act has laid down the procedure for evicting such person. As a first step towards this direction, a show-cause notice under Section 7 of me Act requires to be given to the person in occupation of the land. After receiving the notice, an order needs to be passed under Section 6 of the Act If the competent authority is satisifed mat the person in possession of the land is liable to the evicted, he has to issue a notice in the prescribed form. Though the provisions ofSection 6 of the Act do not in express terms enjoin on the competent authority to pass a speaking order, the very fact that Section 7 of the Act envisages a show- cause notice presupposes that the competent authority has to deal with the explanation/objections ifled by the person in possession of the land. Unless a reasoned order is passed, the person in occupation of the land does not know as to why an order of eviction is passed against him. Further, an appeal under Section 10 of the Act is envisaged by the Act. Unless the order contains reasons, the appellate authority will not be in a position to examine the validity or otherwise of the order and decide the appeal." Having regard to the contentions advanced, it is noted that the scheme of the Act mandates under Section 6 of the Act, if any person is found to be in 5. ' 2013 (6) ALT 42 3 KM,J W.P.No.6639 of 2020 unauthorized occupation of government land, a notice under Section 7 should be served, and it is incumbent on the officer to issue a show-cause notice under Section 7 of the Act as to why the person should not be evicted from the encroached land. Thereafter, affording sufficient opportunity, the order under Section 6 of the Act has to be passed. As seen from the present impugned proceedings, no such notice under Section 7 appears to have been issued to the petitioner. Though the counter affidavit claims that the petitioner was served with both the proceedings under Sections 7 and 6 of the Act, no copy of the notice is annexed to the counter 6. affidavit. Sub-section 2 of Section 6 provides that the mode of eviction under Section 6 shall be in the manner provided under Section 7 of the Act. Section 7 of the Act states that before taking action under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, the Tahsildar shall serve a notice on the person reputed to be in unauthorized occupation of the land, specifying the land so occupied and calling on them to 7. show cause before a certain date. The procedure for service of notice is also provided under the Act, stating that it shall be in the manner prescribed under Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, or in ^such other manner as the State Government may make rules or order under Section 8 of the Act. 8. 4 KM,J W.P.No.6639 of 2020 'V 9. Having regard to the unambiguous and mandatory provisions of the Act the respondents are expected to follow the procedure provided under the Act. The absence of the same renders the orders passed by the authorities unsustainable. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law if the possession of the petitioner is found to be 10. unauthorized. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. Sd/- U.SRI DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. The District Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru Revenue Division, Eluru city. West Godavari District. The Tahsildar, T.Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District. One CC to Sri Sita Ram Chaparla, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three CD Copies. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ssb \ HIGH COURT DATED:19/02/2025 ORDER »SfAND»j^ X 2 J MAR 2025 WP.No.6639 of 2020 CO, a Current beciion ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS