APHC010454752026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 24685/2026 Between: 1. K MANGAPATHI NAIDU @TEJA, S/O. K.APPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O CHANDRAMAMPALLI VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. P.PHANEENDRA, S/O. P. PAPA RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O CHANDRAMAMPALLI VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. T.V.V. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY @ TUMMALA NANI, S/O. SRIRAMA MURTHY,AGED ABOUT 55 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O CHANDRAMAMPALLI VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. B.TRIMURTHULU, S/O. B. DURGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 52 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O CHANDRAMAMPALLI VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. B.MANGA BABU, S/O. B.SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 57 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O CHANDRAMAMPALLI VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. YANDAPALLIMALLESWARARAO, S/O. SURI BABU, AGED ABOUT 67 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O CHANDRAMAMPALLI VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. Page 2 of 6 7. UMMIDI GANESH, S/O. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 60 YRS, OCCBUSINESS, R/O CHANDRAMAMPALLI VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 8. K.NAGESWARA RAO, S/O. K.SAMBA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O CHANDRAMAMPALLI VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 9. AKUMARTHI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. SRI A.VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O CHANDRAMAMPALLI VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 10. GUNNAMPALLI SRINIVAS, S/O. G. TIRUPATHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O CHANDRAMAMPALLI VILLAGE, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH AND 28 OTHERS ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (PANCHAYAT WING), EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, PEDDAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PRAJA PARISHAD, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT ANDHRA PRADES ...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 issue a writ order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, challenging the action of the Respondent No.3 in issuing the Notice, vide Rc.B/18-3/2025, dt 24-08-2026 to ail the Petitioners (U/S 6 of A.P.L.E. Act III of 1905), directing to vacate ail the Petitioners respective premises lands within Seven (07) days from the date of receipt of this Notice, otherwise the 3rd Respondent Authorities will evict the Petitioners immediately, and also trying to evict the Petitioners forcefully without following due process of law, which is illegal, arbitrary and also violation of the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905 and also unconstitutional under Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also against the orders passed by this Hon'bie High Court in WP No. 10777 of 2019, order dated. 01-10- 2019 and consequently, set aside the Notice, dated. 24-08-2026 issued by the Respondent No.3 and direct the 3rd Respondent not to evict all the Petitioners from their shops, situated in Sy.No 208/3 at Chandramampalli Village (Divili) of Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District (Presently Kakinda District, AP 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 suspend the Notice, dated. 24-08-2026, issued by the Respondent No.3, related to all the Petitioners Shops, situated in Sy.No.208/3 at Chandramampalli Village (Divili) of Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District (Presently Kakinda District), AP pending disposal of the above writ petition IA NO: 2 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 direct the Respondents not to evict all the Petitioners from their shops, situated in Sy.No.208/3 at Chandramampalli Village (Divili) of Peddapuram Mandal, East Godavari District (Presently Kakinda District), AP pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P.VENKATA NARASIMHULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: Heard Sri P. Venkata Narasimhulu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Divya Theja, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for the respondents 1 to 3. 2. Challenging the order passed by respondent No.3, vide Rc.B/18- 3/2025, dt: 24.08.2026, under Section 6 of 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 to the notice issued under Section 7 of the Act (Ex.P3), the petitioners submitted explanations (Ex.P4). However, the authority, without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners, issued notices under Section 6 of the Act and passed orders vide Ref.B/18(3)/2025, dated 24.08.2026. He would also submit that 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, respondent No.3 directed the petitioners to evict the land within seven days from the receipt of a copy of the order. He would also submit that no reasons were assigned in the order impugned. 4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would fairly submit that no reasons were assigned in the order passed under Section 6 of the Act. 5. As seen from Ex.P1, the impugned order, it neither discloses consideration of petitioners‟ explanations nor any reasons. An order passed under Section 6 of the Act should contain reasons. 6. This Court, in W.P.No.13839 of 2022 dated 06.05.2022, while reiterating the observations in Kadiyala Sudershan and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh1, set aside the order under Section 6 of the Act on the ground that the order does not contain any reasons. 7. A learned single judge of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kadiyala Sudershan case (referred supra), held thus: “From the scheme of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that the notice of eviction prescribed under Section 6 of the Act, which is akin to a decree, needs to be supported by a reasoned order comparable to a judgment. Otherwise, Section 7 of the Act providing for issuance of a show-cause notice would be rendered nugatory or reduced to an empty formality.” 8. In the case at hand, the order impugned neither manifests consideration of the explanation nor reasons. The order impugned does not withstand the legal scrutiny. 9. Given the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of setting aside the order passed by respondent No.3 vide Ref.B/18(3)/2025, dated 24.08.2026 (Ex.P1), under Section 6 of the Act. The matter is remanded to respondent No.3, to pass an appropriate order after considering the explanations submitted by the petitioners (Ex.P3) and, if necessary, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 10. Till such time, respondent No.3 shall not interfere with the respective properties mentioned in Form 7 notices referred to supra. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 31.08.2026 IKN 1 2013 (5) ALD 212 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 24685 of 2026 Date: 31.08.2026 IKN