APHC010721832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 36814/2025 Between: 1. RAYANA SHANTARAM, S/O. LATE RAYANA SURYA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.58-1-16, MARKET STREET, JAGANNDHAPURAM, KAKINADA (URBAN), EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-533002. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, KAKINADA, INDRAPALEM, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 5. KAKINADA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, CHIDIGA GRAM PANCHAYAT, KAKINADA 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 2 VS, J W.P.No.36814 of 2025 pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing show-cause notice vide Notice No.DEE/WRSD/KKD SEC/6, Dt.22-12-2025 pertaining to land of an extent 100 Sq. Mts situated in Sy.No.41 of Chidiga Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District as illegal, arbitrary, one without jurisdiction apart from violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of AP Irrigation utilization and command area development Act, 1984 and the law laid down by this Honble court in WP(PIL).No.140/2022, Dt.14.09.2022 and in violation of Art.21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the notice issued by the 4th respondent by directing the respondents not to interfere with the residential house of the petitioner situated in Plot No.6 admeasuring an extent of 138.55 Sq. Yards situated in Sy.No.44-1 of Chidiga Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 notice issued by respondent vide Notice No.DEEAA/RSD/KKD SEC/6, Dt.22-12-2025 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 direct the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession of the petitioner’s residential house situated in Plot No.6 admeasuring an extent of 138.55 Sq. Yards situated in Sy.No.44-1 of Chidiga Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. RAVITEJA JAMMALAMADAKA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD The Court made the following: 3 VS, J W.P.No.36814 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “…to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing show-cause notice vide Notice No.DEE/WRSD/KKD SEC/6, Dt.22-12-2025 pertaining to land of an extent 100 Sq. Mts situated in Sy.No.41 of Chidiga Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District as illegal, arbitrary, one without jurisdiction apart from violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of AP Irrigation utilization and command area development Act, 1984 and the law laid down by this Hon’ble court in WP(PIL).No.140/2022, Dt.14.09.2022 and in violation of Art.21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the notice issued by the 4th respondent by directing the respondents not to interfere with the residential house of the petitioner situated in Plot No.6 admeasuring an extent of 138.55 Sq. Yards situated in Sy.No.44-1 of Chidiga Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District.....” 2. The petitioners is the absolute owner of Plot No.6 admeasuring an extent of 138.55 Sq Yards situated in Survey No.44-1 of Chidiga Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District, having purchased the same through a registered document bearing No.5987/2021, dated 05.07.2021 from his vendor, who, in turn, purchased the said property through a registered Sale Deed bearing Document No.4615/2021, dated 28.04.2021. Immediately after purchasing the said property, the petitioner’s vendor has submitted an application for conversion of the land from agriculture purpose to non- 4 VS, J W.P.No.36814 of 2025 agriculture purpose and the same was converted by the respondents vide proceedings dated 12.05.2021. Subsequently, after duly obtaining building permission from the A.P. Metropolitan Region and Urban Development Authority and upon approval of the same, the petitioner constructed a building over the subject land and has been in peaceful possession of the same. 3. While the things stood thus, 4th respondent, without having any right or authority, issued the impugned notice dated 22.12.2025 under Section 38 of the A.P. Irrigation Utilization and Command Area Development Act, 1984, stating that the petitioner has occupied the Government land in Survey No.41 of Chidiga Village, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada District and directing the petitioner to submit an explanation within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of Show-Cause Notice as to why the alleged encroachment should not be removed. Challenging the said notice, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation. 5. On perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 22.12.2025, it can be observed that though it is called as a Show-Cause notice calling for an explanation from the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, but the operative portion of the said Show-Cause notice states that if no explanation is submitted within 15 days from the date of issuance of the notice, the existing encroachment will be removed without any 5 VS, J W.P.No.36814 of 2025 further notice to the petitioner, which, in fact, is an order but cannot be termed as a Show-Cause Notice. 6. 6. In view of the above, instead of going into the merits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit an explanation to the said impugned Show-Cause notice dated 22.12.2025 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly enclosing all the relevant and requisite documents to prove that the subject is private patta land. Upon receipt of the said explanation, the 4th respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 22.12.2025. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 07.01.2026 KGR