APHC010486092026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26460/2026 Between: 1. INDLA ADISESHAMMA, W/O. LATE SEETHARAMAIAH AGED 87 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE RIO. 1PPATAM VILLAGE TADEPALLI MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. INDLA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. LATE SEETHARAMAIAH AGED 60 YEARS OCC AGRICULTURE RIO. IPPATAM VILLAGE TADEPALLI MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TADEPALLI MANDAL TADEPALLI GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings in Rc.No.180/2026-A dated 12-09-2026 passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Madras Act III of 1905) until further orders, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 proceedings in Rc.No.180/2026-A dated 12-09-2026 passed by the 3rd respondent under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Madras Act III of 19(5) until further orders, pending disposal of .j.le above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. PRABHU NATH VASIREDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Prabhunath Vasireddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3. 2. Assailing the proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.180/2026-A, dated 12.09.2026-Ex.P1, under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short „the Act‟), the above writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the notice, dated 27.08.2026, issued under Section 7 of the Act was not served on the petitioners. But the order/notice, dated 10.09.2026, issued under Section 6 of the Act, was served on the petitioners, assailing which the petitioners filed W.P.No.26273 of 2026 and an interim order was granted on 11.09.2026. Thereafter, the order in Ex.P1 was passed. Learned counsel would submit that in Ex.P1, it was stated that the revenue records reflect the name of petitioner No.1, in respect of Ac.0-20 cents in Survey No.159/2-A1. The proceedings-Ex.P1 were passed without affording an opportunity. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, would submit that notice under Section 7 of the Act was served on the son of the petitioners and since no explanation was submitted, a notice under Section 6 of the Act was issued. Thereafter, the order, impugned in this writ petition, was passed. 5. As seen from the material available on record, notice dated 27.08.2026 was issued under Section 7 of the Act, pointing out that the petitioners occupied an extent of Ac.00-49 cents in Survey No.159-2A and Ac.0-20 cents in Survey No.159/1B and fifteen days were granted for submitting an explanation. The notice was allegedly received by the son of the petitioners by name, I. Rama Krishna. However, the instructions do not disclose as to when the notice was served on the petitioner‟s son. Subsequently, an order under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.09.2026 i.e. on the fifteenth day from the date of issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Act. Against the order under Section 6 of the Act, an appeal would lie under Section 10 of the Act, to the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the limitation for filing an appeal is sixty days. However, in the notice/order dated 10.09.2026 issued under Section 6 of the Act, 48 hours' time was granted to the petitioners to vacate the extents mentioned therein. 6. Thereafter, the order impugned in the writ petition came to be passed on 12.09.2026. Neither the notice dated 10.09.2026 issued under Section 6 of the Act nor the proceedings dated 12.09.2026-Ex.P1, indicate the conduct of an enquiry. Page 4 of 7 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chamoli District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Raghunath Singh Rana1, has held that even where there are no specific statutory rules regarding the observance of the rules of natural justice, still, it is incumbent that the concerned person is given due opportunity of hearing before passing any order, which is causing prejudice to him/her. It was observed as under at para No.19: 19. The compliance with natural justice in domestic/disciplinary inquiry is necessary has long been established. This Court has held that even there are no specific statutory rules requiring observance of natural justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary. Certain ingredients have been held to be constituting integral part of holding of an inquiry. The Apex Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Workmen [Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1914 : (1964) 3 SCR 616] has laid down the following : (AIR p. 1916, para 4) “4. … An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are examined—ordinarily in the presence of the employee—in respect of the charges, (iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and (v) the enquiry officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report.” 1 2016 (12) SCC 204 8. In Mangilal v. State of M.P.2, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under: 10. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, there could be nothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be affected by the orders that may be passed, and making it a requirement to follow a fair procedure before taking a decision, unless the statute provides otherwise. The principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi- judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. (See Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 664 : AIR 1981 SC 818] .) Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. 2 (2004) 2 SCC 447 Principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They are a means to an end and not an end in themselves. The principles of natural justice have many facets. Two of them are : notice of the case to be met, and opportunity to explain. (emphasis is mine) 9. In the case at hand, as pointed out supra, in the notice under Section 6 of the Act, the authority directed the petitioners to vacate Ac.00-49 cents and Ac.00-20 cents in Survey Nos.159/2A and 159/1B respectively, of Ippatam Village, as mentioned in the notice. However, when it comes to the proceedings dated 12.09.2026-Ex.P1, it was recorded as under: “The separately recorded Ac.0-20 cents shall not be disturbed under this order, unless and until separate proceedings are initiated and finalized in accordance with law.” 10. In the order dated 12.09.2026, it was also mentioned that the petitioners can file an appeal before the competent authority within 60 days from the receipt of a copy of the order. Thus, there is inconsistency in the speaking order dated 12.09.2026 and the notice/order dated 10.09.2026, issued under Section 6 of the Act, vis-à-vis the encroachments. Even the opportunity of hearing was not provided. 11. At this juncture, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that if the petitioners submit an explanation to the notice, the authority will consider the same and pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 12. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners will submit an explanation by raising all the objections, including the ground of jurisdiction of the Tahsildar, to issue the notice under Section 7 of the Act. 13. Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side with the following directions: 1. The proceedings issued by respondent No.3 vide Rc.No.180/2026- A, dated 12.09.2026-Ex.P1, are hereby set aside. 2. The petitioners shall submit an explanation to the notice dated 27.08.2026 issued under Section 7 of the Act, by raising all the objections, within ten days from today, 3. Upon receipt of the explanation, the Tahsildar-respondent No.3 shall consider the explanation, fix a date, conduct an enquiry, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a reasoned order, strictly as per the Rules. 4. The learned respondent No.3 shall also consider the objection, if any, raised regarding jurisdiction. 5. Till an order is passed, respondent No.3 shall not interfere with the land to an extent of Ac.00-49 cents and Ac.00-20 cents in Survey Nos.159/2A and 159/1B respectively, of Ippatam Village, as mentioned in the notice dated 27.08.2026 issued under Section 7 of the Act. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 16.09.2026 IKN