APHC010149962026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [0] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7833/2026 Between: 1. MUNDUNURU APPALARAJU,, S/O RANGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O D.NO.14-284/1, GOLLALA THIMMAPURAM, NAGARAPALEM, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 531163. 2. MUNDUNURU CHANDRAVATHI,, W/O APPALARAJU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O D.NO.14-284/1, GOLLALA THIMMAPURAM, NAGARAPALEM, BHEEMUNIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 531163. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530002. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM DIVISION, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT- 530002. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT-531163. ...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 topleased to issue an order, proceedings or writ more particularly one in the nature of of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing proceedings under Section 6 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide Rc.No.670/2025/A dated 23.02.2026, preceded by an arbitrary eviction notice issued on the very same date directing the petitioners to vacate the subject property within 24 hours, and the subsequent impugned order passed thereafter, as illegal, arbitrary, irrational and violative of the principles of natural justice and the procedure prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and further infringing the petitioners fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the issuance of the 24-hour eviction notice clearly demonstrates the pre- determined intention of the respondents to dispossess the petitioners even before passing the impugned order, thereby rendering the entire proceedings a mere formality and a colorable exercise of power, and being a non-speaking order passed without proper consideration of the petitioners explanation and material records and contrary to the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in Government of A.P. V. Thummala Krishna Rao, AIR 1982 SC 1081 and consequently set aside the said proceedings and restrain the respondents from taking any coercive steps including eviction or demolition in respect of the petitioners residential property situated in Sy.Nos.331, 332, 346 and 347/1 of Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the proceedings under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide Rc.No.670/2025/A dated 23.02.2026 issued by the 4**^ respondent and restrain the respondents from taking any coercive steps including eviction or demolition in respect of the petitioners’ residential property situated in Sy.Nos.331, 332, 346 and 347/1 of Kapuluppada Village, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G V S KISHORE KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 The Court made the following Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed questioning the notice issued by the 4th respondent dated 23.02.2026 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 on the ground that the 1st petitioner encroached upon the Vagu land by raising structures and compound wall in Sy.No.331, 332, 346 & 347/1 in different extents as detailed in the schedule mentioned in the said notice dated 23.02.2026 and thereby petitioners were directed to vacate the same within 24 hours from the date of service of the said notice. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the appeal time is available against the order of the 4th respondent dated 23.02.2026, the 4th respondent issued the above said consequential notice by ordering vacation of the subject lands within 24 hours which is not permissible under law. Though the impugned proceedings of the 4th respondent is dated 23.02.2026, it was served on the petitioners on 12.03.2026. 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that in the event of filing appeal by the petitioners against the said order of the 4th respondent dated 4 23.02.2026, the appellate authority will dispose of the same by following the due procedure. 5. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority concerned against the order of the 4th respondent dated 23.02.2026 enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim within the period of limitation. On receipt of such appeal from the petitioners, the said appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioners and others concerned giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter. 6. Pending consideration of the appeal, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject lands of encroachments alleged as detailed in the schedule given in the above said notice of the 4th respondent dated 23.02.2026. For the purpose of consideration of the above said appeal, the impugned consequential notice of the 4th respondent dated 23.02.2026 only is set aside herewith. 5 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN 18.03.2026 Note: Issue C.C. today. B/o NNN