APHC010282112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3521] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14635/2026 Between: 1. KANDAPPA REDDY SUBRAMANYAM REDDY,, S/O. SUBBA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO.1-24, LOKAMATHAPURAM CHUTTAGUNTA RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ARIDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522237. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITOOR DISTRICL AT CHITOOR.517001. 3. THE THASILDAR, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH,517561. ...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 pleased to issue a writ order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the high handed action of the 3rd respondent, in issuing notice vide Roc. No. A 62/2026/, dated 11.05.2026 to the petitioners subject property of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac 1.50 Cents including Ac.0.10 cents of notice shedule proparty situated in 2 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.14635 of 2026 Dated 21.05.2026 Sy.No.96/B of Chuttugunta Ramapuram Village accounts, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chitoor District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against to the A.P Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transactions) Act, 1977 and A.P Assigned rules therein and violation of the rights under article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also violation principals of Natural justice and the order of this Honble High Court and Apex court passed in various other similar situated cases and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice and consequently set-aside the notice vide Roc. No. A 62/2026/, dated 11.05.2026 and to 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 grant stay of all further proceedings of the notice vide Roc. No. A 62/2026/, dated 11.05.2026 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH VENKAT RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER: The Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief: “…to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the high handed action of the 3rd respondent, in issuing notice vide Roc. No. A 62/2026/, dated 11.05.2026 to the petitioner’s subject property of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1.50 Cents including Ac.0.10 cents of notice schedule property situated in Sy.No.96/B of Chuttugunta Ramapuram Village accounts, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chitoor District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against to the A.P Assigned lands (Prohibition of Transactions) Act, 1977 and A.P Assigned rules therein and violation of the rights under Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and also violation of principals of Natural justice and the order of this Hon’ble High Court and Apex court passed in various other similar situated cases and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice and consequently set-aside the notice 3 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.14635 of 2026 Dated 21.05.2026 vide Roc. No. A 62/2026/, dated 11.05.2026, and pass such other order or orders....” 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue Department. 3. Sri. Ch.Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that a notice dated 11.05.2026 was issued by Respondent No.3 to the Petitioner stating that one D.Hara Prasad has submitted a complaint in PGRS on 20.04.2026 alleging that one K.Pavan Kumar has erected an iron gate and Praveen has constructed a compound wall by encroaching Ac.0.10 cents of land in Sy.No.96 of C.Ramapuram Village. There is a Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.8526 of 2022 on the file of this Court, wherein interim order was granted on 21.10.2022. 4. Sri T.Sanjeev Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader on instructions, submits that since the PGRS complaint was submitted by one D.Hara Prasad, Respondent No.3 had issued a notice to the Petitioner requiring him to remove the unauthorized encroachment. 5. It is appropriate to extract Sections 6 and 7 of „the Act.,‟ as under: “ 6. Liability of person unauthorisedly occupying land to summary eviction, forfeiture of crops, etc.:- 1. Any person unauthorisedly occupying any land for which he is liable to pay assessment under Section 3 may be summarily evicted by the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar, and any crop or other product raised on the land shall be liable to forfeiture and any building or other construction erected or anything deposited thereon shall also, if not removed by him after such written notice as the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar may deem reasonable, be liable to forfeiture. Forfeitures under this section shall be adjudged by the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar and any property so forfeited 4 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.14635 of 2026 Dated 21.05.2026 shall be disposed of as the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar may direct. 2. Mode of eviction:- An eviction under this section shall be made in the following manner, namely : By serving a notice in the manner provided in Section 7 on the person reputed to be in occupation or his agent requiring him within such time as the Collector, Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar may deem reasonable after receipt of the said notice to vacate the land, and if such notice is not obeyed, by removing or deputing a subordinate to remove any person who may refuse to vacate the same, and if the officer removing any such person shall be resisted or obstruction by any person, the Collector shall hold a summary inquiry into the facts of the case, and if satisfied that the resistance or obstruction was without any just cause and that such resistance or obstruction shall continue, may issue a warrant for the arrest of the said person and on his appearance commit him to close custody in the office of the Collector or of any Tahsildar or Deputy Tahsildar for such period not exceeding 30 days as may be necessary to prevent the continuance of such obstruction or resistance or may send him with a warrant in the form of the schedule for imprisonment in the civil jail of the district for the like period: Provided that no person so committed or imprisoned under this section shall be liable to be prosecuted under Section 183, 186 or 188 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the same facts. 3. Any person who unauthorisedly re-enters and occupies any land from which he was evicted under this Section, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. 7. Prior notice to person in occupation:- Before taking proceedings under Section 5 or Section 6, the Collector or Tahsildar, or Deputy Tahsildar, as the case may be, shall cause to be served on the person reputed to be in unauthorised occupation of land being the property of Government, a notice specifying the land so occupied and calling on him to show cause before a certain date why he should not be proceeded against under Section 5 or Section 6. Such notice shall be served in the manner prescribed in Section 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Act II of 1864) or in such other manner as the State Government by rules or order under Section 8 may direct.” 6. Therefore, on a fair reading of Sections 6 and 7 of „the Act‟, it can be gleaned that the Collector or other revenue authorities are empowered to summarily evict persons in unauthorized occupation of Government land, forfeit crops or constructions, and even impose custody or imprisonment in 5 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.14635 of 2026 Dated 21.05.2026 cases of obstruction. However, such eviction must follow the prescribed procedure, beginning with a prior notice under Section 7 of „the Act.,‟ that specifies the land and calls upon the occupant to show cause. The law also provides for forfeiture of property left on the land and penal consequences for re-entry after eviction. Thus, the statutory scheme ensures both a summary remedy for the State and procedural safeguards for the occupant. 7. In this regard, it is profitable to refer the judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao 1, wherein it is held as follows: “9. The view of the Division Bench that the summary remedy provided for by Section 6 cannot be resorted to unless the alleged encroachment is of "a very recent origin", cannot be stretched too far that was also the view taken by the learned single Judge himself in another case which is reported in Meherunnissa Begum v. State of A.P. which was affirmed by a Division Bench. It is not the duration, short or long, of encroachment that is conclusive of the question whether the summary remedy prescribed by the Act can be put into operation for evicting a person. What is relevant for the decision of that question is more the nature of the property on which the encroachment is alleged to have been committed and the consideration whether the claim of the occupant is bona fide. Facts which raise a bona fide dispute of title between the Government and the occupant must be adjudicated upon by the Ordinary courts of law. The Government cannot decide such questions unilaterally in its own favour and evict any person summarily on the basis of such decision. But duration of occupation is relevant in the sense that a person who is in occupation of a property openly for an appreciable length of time can be taken, prima facie, to have a bonafide claim to the property requiring an impartial adjudication according to the established procedure of law. 10. The conspectus of facts in the instant case justifies the view that the question as to the title to the three plots cannot appropriately be decided in a summary inquiry contemplated by sections 6 and 7 of the Act. The long possession of the respondents and their predecessors-in- title of these plots raises a genuine dispute between them and the Government on the question of title, remembering especially that the property, admittedly, belonged originally to the family of Nawab Habibuddin from whom the 1 (1982) 2 Supreme Court Cases 134 6 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.14635 of 2026 Dated 21.05.2026 respondents claim to have purchased it. The question as to whether the title to the property came to be vested in the Government as a result of acquisition and the further question whether the Nawab encroached upon that property thereafter and perfected his title by adverse possession must be decided in a properly constituted suit. May be, that the Government may succeed in establishing its title to the property but, until that is done, the respondents cannot be evicted summarily.” 8. Thus, in Thummala Krishna Rao supra at para Nos. 9 and 10 it is held that the summary remedy under Section 6 of „the Act‟ is not confined merely to cases of recent encroachment, but depends on the nature of the property and whether the occupant‟s claim is bona fide. Where long possession raises a genuine dispute of title, such questions must be adjudicated by ordinary civil courts and not decided unilaterally by the Government. The Government cannot summarily evict persons when bona fide disputes of ownership exist, especially if possession has been open and for an appreciable length of time. In the instant case, the respondents‟ long possession and their claim through purchase from Nawab Habibuddin‟s family created a real dispute of title. Hence, eviction could not be ordered summarily under Sections 6 and 7, and the matter required proper adjudication in a civil suit. 9. It has to be pointed out that when such PGRS complaint was submitted by one person, Respondent No.3 ought to have called for an explanation and after receiving explanation, then only, Respondent No.3 ought to have taken any decision by passing appropriate order by conducting enquiry as contemplated under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for brevity „the Act‟). Without following due process of law as 7 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.14635 of 2026 Dated 21.05.2026 contemplated under Sections 6 and 7 of „the Act' there was no justification on the part of Respondent No.3 in straight away issuing notice to the Petitioner requiring him to remove the unauthorized encroachment within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of copy of the notice. 10. The High Court of Allahabad in Manju Agarwal v. A.D.J. Meerut2, at paragraph Nos.21 and 22 held as follows: “21. Having said so, I find that there is another aspect which is directly attracted and goes to the root of the matter. Whether substantive rights of parties, with respect to title, ownership etc., to a property claimed to be a 'public premises', can be determined by Prescribed Authority under the special enactment like Act, 1971, providing a summary procedure for eviction of an unauthorised occupant from public premises or removal of unauthorised constructions. 22. A pari materia provision came to be considered in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao and another [ MANU/SC/0519/1982 : 1982 SC 1081]. Section 6 and 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short "Act 1905") was up for consideration before the Court. It held that summary remedy for eviction can be resorted to by the Government only against persons who are unauthorised occupant of any land, which is property of the Government. In respect to such property, obviously, there should be no doubt, difficulty or dispute about title of Government. In such a case, Government would be free to take recourse to summary remedy of eviction under Section 6 of Act, 1905. Having said so, the Court further held: "If there is a bona fide dispute regarding the title of the Government to any property, the Government cannot take a unilateral decision in its own favour that the property belong to it and on the basis of such decision take recourse to the summary remedy provided by Section 6 for evicting the person who is in possession of the property under a bona fide claim or title in the instant case, there "unquestionably a genuine dispute between the State Government and the respondents as to whether the three plots of land were the subject-matter of acquisition proceedings taken by the then Government of Hyderabad and whether the Osmania University, for whose benefit the plots are alleged to have been acquired, had lost title to the property by operation of the law of limitation. The suit filed by University was dismissed on the ground of limitation, inter alia, since Nawab Habibuddin was found to have encroached on the property more than twelve years Sore the date of the suit and the University was not in possession of the property at any time within that period. Having failed in the suit, the University activated the 2 MANU/UP/1880/2014 8 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.14635 of 2026 Dated 21.05.2026 Government to evict the Nawab and his transferees summarily, which seems to us impermissible. The respondents have a bona fide claim to litigate and they cannot be evicted save by the due process of law. The summary remedy prescribed by Section 6 is not the kind of legal process which is suited to an adjudication of complicated question of title. That procedure is, therefore, not the due process of law for evicting the respondents." 11. Thus, in Manju Agarwal supra at paragraph Nos.21 and 22 it is held that the power of summary eviction under special enactments is confined to cases where the Government‟s title to the property is clear, undisputed, and free from doubt. Where a bona fide dispute regarding title or ownership exists, such questions cannot be unilaterally determined by the authorities exercising summary jurisdiction. Complex issues relating to title, ownership, or adverse possession require adjudication by a competent civil court through regular legal proceedings. Persons in possession under a genuine claim of right are entitled to due process of law and cannot be dispossessed through summary eviction proceedings. Accordingly, summary remedies are inappropriate for resolving disputed questions of title and are available only against occupants whose unauthorized possession is established beyond dispute. 12. The High Court of Telangana in P. Ravinder Reddy v. State of Telangana3, at paragraph No.5 held as follows: “5. The law amply mandates issuance of a notice under Section 7 of the Act calling for explanation from the encroacher; and in case the authorities are not satisfied with the explanation, then a notice under Section 6 of the Act stipulating a time limit for vacating the encroachment has to be issued; and if the encroacher fails to vacate within the time stipulated, then the authorities can evict him. While considering the explanation of the encroacher, the respondent authorities are required to objectively consider the objections including the nature of occupation, the length of time under the 3 MANU/UP/1880/2014 9 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.14635 of 2026 Dated 21.05.2026 occupation of the encroacher etc. In case there is an element of dispute in relation to the title, summary procedure contemplated under the Act cannot be instituted, as the Act is not a short-cut for deprivation of a citizen‟s undisputed possession over a long period. In such cases, the proper remedy would be to approach the Civil Court for recovery of possession. All the above elements are required to be reflected by way of a Speaking Order under Section 6 of the Act. It is only thereafter, by putting on notice, a person can be asked to vacate the land and, in the process, specify a reasonable time for doing so. Though procedure contemplated for eviction under the Act is somewhat summary, the same is not intended to short-circuit the whole procedure prescribed under and read into the Act by the Courts. In the instant case, the impugned notice is issued without proper enquiry or basis, and hence the same is bad in law and is liable to be set aside." 13. Ergo, in P. Ravinder Reddy supra at paragraph No.5 it is held that „the Act.,‟ mandates strict compliance with the procedure of issuing a notice under Section 7, considering the occupant‟s explanation, and thereafter passing a reasoned speaking order under Section 6 before directing eviction. While examining the objections, the authorities must objectively assess factors such as the nature and duration of possession and any dispute relating to title. Where a bona fide dispute regarding ownership exists, the summary procedure under the Act cannot be invoked, and the appropriate remedy lies before the competent Civil Court. The summary mechanism under „the Act.,‟ is intended only for clear cases of encroachment and not for depriving persons of long-standing possession without due process. Consequently, any eviction notice issued without proper enquiry, consideration of objections, and a reasoned order is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 14. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the notice dated 11.05.2026 in 10 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.14635 of 2026 Dated 21.05.2026 Roc.No.A 62/2026 issued by Respondent No.3. However, it is left open to Respondent No.3 to follow due procedure contemplated under „the Act‟ by conducting a detailed enquiry and pass appropriate orders on the PGRS complaint submitted by D.Hara Prasad. Until such procedure is followed and exercise is made, the Respondents are directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over the subject land. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr.Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J Date: 21.05.2026 TPS/BSP 11 Dr.YLR, J W.P.No.14635 of 2026 Dated 21.05.2026 10 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14635/2026 Date: 21.05.2026 TPS/BSP