APHC010348272026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Wednesday, The 5th day of August, 2026 Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 18760 of 2026 Between: Cheepurapalli Suryanarayana ...Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ... Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Y. Sudhakar Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following: 1. G.P. for Revenue 2 BSB,J W.P. No.18760 of 2026 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly a writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No. 5 in issuing the impugned proceedings in Rc.No. 116 / 2026 / SA dated 16.05.2026 under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (in short ‘the Act, 1905’), as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and set aside the same; and consequently direct the respondents Nos. 2 to 5 not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of land to an extent of Ac. 0.44 cents situated in survey No. 410-18-A of Amruthapuram Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District; and pass such other order as may be just and necessary. 2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated, is as follows: a. The petitioner is the absolute owner of the subject land, being ancestral property and the family of the petitioner has been in continuous possession of the same for several decades, as the grandfather of the petitioner, Cheepurpalli Somulu, was also recorded as pattadar and possessor in the revenue accounts with patta No. 1028. All of a sudden, the revenue authorities, without knowledge of the petitioner and without conducting proper enquiry, changed the classification of the subject land as government land and issued the Circular Memo No. REV0I-LANOLand / 435 / 2025, dated 02.01.2026 by including the subject land in the list of properties prohibited under Section 22-A of the Registration Act, 1908. Immediately, the petitioner submitted a representation on 21.01.2026 to the respondent No. 4 for deletion of the property from the prohibition. 3 BSB,J W.P. No.18760 of 2026 b. While the representation is pending, the respondent No. 5 issued a show cause notice dated 08.05.2026, under Section 7 of the Act, 1905, serving it on the petitioner on 15.05.2026, as though the petitioner is under unauthorized occupation of the government land, asking the petitioner to submit explanation within 15 days, either in person or in writing. c. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 22.05.2026, along with all relevant records, including the latest e-pattadar pass book and title deed, in the name of the petitioner. However, the respondent No. 5 passed the order vide Rc.No. 116 / 2026 / SA dated 16.05.2026 under Section 6 of the Act, 1905, even before expiry of the period of fifteen days mentioned in the notice dated 08.05.2026 and submission of the explanation by the petitioner. Therefore, the order was passed without considering the explanation. Hence, the order impugned in the writ petition is ex facie illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. 3. Sri G. Divyatheja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed on record a copy of written instructions of the respondent No. 5, dated 20.07.2026. 4. Perused the record. Admittedly, the notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1905, dated 08.05.2026 was served on the petitioner on 15.05.2026, as can be seen from the endorsement on the notice, a copy of which was filed along with the petition. 5. On 16.05.2026, the impugned order was passed recording that the petitioner submitted an explanation and the same was not satisfactory. The order does not refer to the statements made in the explanation and how such statement was not satisfactory. Therefore, mere statement that the explanation submitted is not satisfactory is not adequate to sustain as a speaking order which is necessary to be 4 BSB,J W.P. No.18760 of 2026 passed even in administrative orders, as it safeguards against arbitrariness and minimises personal bias. When an order refers to the objection(s) and valid reason(s) for not accepting the objection(s), anyone can understand the correctness of the conclusion reached. No such effort at all was made in the case on hand. 6. Moreover, according to the petitioner, the explanation was submitted on 22.05.2026, but the order dated 16.05.2026 refers to the explanation with its presentation date. If it was referred before passing the order, it is possible to mention its contents in the order. So, it strengthens the contention that the order was hurriedly passed without receiving objections. It is not known how the explanation was received before 16.05.2026 to pass the impugned order. 7. For all these reasons, the impugned order suffers from illegality and is liable to be set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to conduct enquiry afresh on the notice already given under Section 7 of the Act, 1905, and after hearing the petitioner and considering the explanation already submitted by him. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The respondent No. 5 is directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a well reasoned order afresh taking into consideration the explanation already submitted by the petitioner. Till such time, the possession of the petitioner with regard to the subject property shall not be disturbed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 05.08.2026 NSM 5 BSB,J W.P. No.18760 of 2026 53 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 18760 of 2026 Dated: 05.08.2026 NSM