Ullamparthi Nageswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

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 an appropriate order or direction^{moreparticularly,one} in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Eviction Notice under section 6 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act III of 1905 issued by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, ultra virus, contrary to the procedure established by law and contrary to the principles of natural

¶17

r

¶18

justice apart from being violative of Article 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the same in the interest of justice.

¶19

ifA NO: 1 OF 2n?f;

¶20

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 evict the petitioner from his House bearing No. 1-445 situated in the land in admeasuring Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy. No. 590 of Pydipala Village, Makavrapalem Mandal, Anakapalli District by suspending the Eviction Notice under section 6 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act ili of 1905 issued by the 4th respondent pending disposai of the above writ petition in the interest of justice.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶23

The Court made the following order:

pii

APHC010145362025

V

■ j- s:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

[0]

¶30

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO: 7388/2025

¶34

Between:

¶35

UllamparthiNageswara Rao

¶36

...PETITIONER

¶37

AND

¶38

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶39

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶41

1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

¶42

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶43

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶44

The Court made the following:

¶45

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶46

WRIT PETITION No.7388 OF 2025

¶47

ORDER:-

¶48

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the

¶49

India seeking the following relief:-

¶50

“to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Eviction Notice under section 6 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act III of 1905 issued by the respondent^as illegal, arbitrary ultra virus contrary to the procedure^established by law and contrary to the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Article 21 and 300A of the^{Constitutionof} India and consequentially set aside the same in the^interestof justice and passsuch other order or orders...”

¶51

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned^Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.03 cents situated at Sy.No.590 of Pydipala Village Makavarapalem Mandal, Anakapalli District since twenty years. The Pydipala Gram Panchayat assessed house tax vide assessment^No.445 and the petitioner has been paying the house tax regularly without any default which also proves that the petitioner herein is in possession and enjoyment of the said house property. While things stood thus, respondent No.4 herein issued a notice under section^7oftheAndhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 vide proceedings dated

¶53

m

¶54

05.12.2024 stating that the petitioner is in unauthorized^{occupationofthe} Government land. For which, the petitioner herein submitted^adetailed explanation. But the respondents did not consider the^{saidexplanationin} prospective manner except observing ‘received reply notice’, without there being any stand and further no reasons were assigned by respondent No.4 while passing order Under Section 6 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

¶55

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the^judgment rendered by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh,^Hyderabad, in Kadiyala Sudershan and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others^, wherein the relevant portion of^{thesaidorderis} extracted hereunder:

¶56

“6. From the scheme of the Act, I am of the opinion^that the notice of eviction prescribed under Section 6 of^theAct, which is akin to a decree, needs to be supported by a reasoned order comparable to a judgment. Othenwise,^section 7 of the Act providing for issuance of a show cause^notice would be rendered nugatory or reduced to an empty formality. ”

¶57

In view of the ratio laid down by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, the impugned order dated 05.12.2024 passed by respondent No.4 under section 6 of the Act^{iscontrarytothe} law and is liable to be set aside.

¶58

'2013(6) ALT 42

¶59

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that in view of judgment referred supra, respondent No.4 issued eviction notice under section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 has no compliance and let there be a direction to remand the matter for fresh consideration.

¶60

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record and after considering the ratio laid down by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad referred supra, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned notice under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 issued by respondent No.4 is contrary to law and liable to be set aside.

¶61

Accordingly, the impugned proceedings issued by respondent^No.4 under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is hereby set aside. However, respondent No.4 is at liberty to proceed further by considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner^and pass a reasoned order by taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, referred supra and the contents made in the explanation, within a reasonable time, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as other stake holders, if any. Till passing of such order, the respondents are directed

¶62

not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of the petitioner. 9. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

subject property of the petitioner.

¶64

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending^inthewrit

¶65

petition shall stand closed.

¶66

Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶67

//TRUE COPY//

¶68

SECTION OFFICER