Naganaboyina Appala Setti Vs the State of Ap

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 passed an order or orders, direction or directions, writ or writ of Mandamus, declare the action of the respondent in passing the orders vide proceedings Roc.65/2025(SA) dated 20.03.2025, where in directing the petitioner to evict from the land to^{anextentofextentofAc.} 1.00 cents in S.No.120 of Kagitha Revenue Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, Anakapalli District, within 48 hours. Without following procedure as contemplate under law though he submitted detailed explanation to the notice dated 25.02.2025 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary. Violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice, and further direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the above lands.

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶18

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 stay the proceedings Roc.65/2025(SA) dated^{20.03.2025issued} by the 3^^ respondent evicting the petitioner from^{thelandstoanextentof} Ac. 1.00 cents in S.No.120 of Kagitha Revenue Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, Anakapalli District pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

:;1::

¶21

APHC010148122025

¶22

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

¶23

[3329]

¶24

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 7572/2025

¶28

Between:

¶29

Naganaboyina Appala Setti

¶30

...PETITIONER

¶31

AND

¶32

The State Of Ap and Others

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶35

MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA

¶36

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶37

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶38

::2::

¶39

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENAKTESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶40

WRIT PETITION N0.7572 of 2025

¶41

This Court made the following

¶42

ORDER:

¶43

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionofIndia}

¶44

seeking the following relief:

¶45

“..to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly^one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 3"'^ respondent in passing the orders vide proceedings Roc.65/2025(SA) dated 20.03.2025,^wherein directing the petitioner to evict from the land to^{anextentofAc.1.00centsin} S.No.120 of Kagitha Revenue Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, Anakapalli District, within 48 hours, without following procedure as contemplate under law though petitioner submitted detailed explanation to the notice dated 25.02.2025 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary,^{violativeofArticles14,21} and 300-A of the Constitution of India and against the principles of natural justice and further direct the respondents not to evict the petitioner from the above lands and pass.”

¶46

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue and perused the material placed^onrecord.

¶47

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner is absoluter owner and possessor of the land to an extent^{ofAc.0.60centsin} S.No.120 of Kagitha Revenue Village, Nakkapalli Mandal, Anakapalli^District since long time and he is eking out his livelihood by cultivating the said land. While so, the 3'"'^ respondent herein issued eviction^{noticedated25.02.2025} U/s 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short “APLE Act”) alleging

¶48

::3::

¶49

that the petitioner encroached the subject land. In response to the said notice the Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 04.03.2025. Without proper consideration regarding the contents made in the explanation, the 3 rd respondent issued eviction notice U/s 6 of the APLE Act.

¶50

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the notice U/s 6 of the APLE Act is an appealable order before 2'"'^ Respondent / RDO U/s 10 of the APLE Act under which the Petitioner can prefer an appeal within 60 days from the date of notice ordered U/s 6 of the APLE Act. But erroneously the 3 rd respondent granted only 48 hours time without observing the period of statutory appeal to be preferred by the petitioner. Hence the order of the 3'^^ respondent U/s 6 of the APLE Act is contrary to law.

¶51

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that the grievance of the petitioner is even though he was provided statutory appeal against the order of the 3'^ respondent within a period of 60 days, but the 3^^ respondent directing the petitioner to evict the subject property within 48 hours is contrary to the statutory appeal provided U/s 10 of the APLE Act. Therefore, the petitioner’s interest can be protected till the preferring of the appeal.

¶52

Having submissions made by both the counsel, this Court is of the considered view that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to assail the order U/s 6 of the APLE Act within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after receipt of the

¶53

::4:;

¶54

same the 2 nd respondent shall consider the same and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner pass appropriate^{ordersinaccordance} with law within three months thereafter. In the meanwhile, status-quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained by all parties. No costs.

¶55