Sunkari Simhachalam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9445 OF 2025

¶5

Between:

¶6

Sunkari Simhachalam, S/o. Late Appalaswamy, Aged 50 years, agriculturist, D.No.2-22, Rajaveedhi, Ompalli Village Bondapalli Mandal Vizianagaram District-535215.

¶7

...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur^District.

¶10

The District Collector, Vizianagaram District.

¶11

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram^District.

¶12

The Tahsildar, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

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 writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in dispossessing the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.200, an extent of Ac.3.01 cents, situated at Ompalli Village, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District without following due procedure i.e., without considering his explanation dated 10.02.2025 and conducting enquiry issuing eviction proceedings vide Rc.No.03/2022/SA/24.02^.2025 by the Respondent No.4 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutiona l, violative of the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequentially set

¶15

aside the order issued by the Respondent No.4 in

¶16

.1^

¶17

"• RO.03/2022/SA/24.02.2025.

¶18

\A NO: 1 OF 2025

¶19

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 Respondent No.4 not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner's land in Sy.No.200, an extent of Ac.3.01 cents, situated at Ompalli Village, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. MADHU SUDHAN

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶22

The Court made the following; ORDER

¶23

#5^

¶24

APHC010158112025

¶25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶26

[3329]

¶27

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶28

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO: 9445/2025

Between:

Sunkari Simhachalam

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶37

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶39

I.MADHU SUDHAN P

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶41

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

2

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

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

¶46

seeking the following reliefs:-

¶47

lo issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.4 in dispossessing the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.200, an extent of^Ac.3.01 cents, situated at Ompalli Village, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District without following due procedure i.e., without considering his explanation dated 10.02.2025^and conducting enquiry issuing eviction proceedings vide Rc.No.03/2022/SA/24.02.2025 by the Respondent No.4 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, violative of the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights guaranteedunder Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequentially set aside the order issued by the Respondent No.4 in Rc.03/2022/SA/24.02.2025 and pass”.

¶48

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned^{AssistantGovernment}

¶49

Pleader for Revenue.

¶50

The case of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner of the subject land bearing Survey No. 200, measuring Ac. 3.01 cents, situated in Ompalli Village, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the subject land for the last 30 years. While so, respondent No. 4 is trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land without following due process of law. The respondent No.2 has issued notices^{dated05.02.2025and} 24.02.2025 under Sections 7 and 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short, “the Act, 1905”). After issuance^{ofthenoticedated05.02.2025}

¶51

under Section 7 of the Act, 1905, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.02.2025 by registered post to respondent Nos.2 to 4. In fact, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.4 issued the eviction notice dated 24.02.2025 under Section 6 of the Act, 1905. Aggrieved by the same. the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notices dated 05.02.2025 and 24.02.2025 were issued without considering the explanation dated 10.02.2025 submitted by the petitioner and without following the principles of natural justice. As such, the impugned notices are liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submits that in pursuance of the notice dated 05.02.2025 issued under Section 7 of the Act, 1905, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.02.2025, and the same has to be considered. Only after consideration of the explanation, a notice under Section 6 of the Act, 1905 or proceedings for eviction has to be issued. However, in the present case, the explanation of the petitioner was not duly considered by respondent No. 4. He further submits that reasonable time may be given to consider the explanation and to pass appropriate orders by following due process of law.

¶52

Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, and on perusal of the material on record, it is observed that the eviction notice dated 24.02.2025 under Section 6 of the Act, 1905 was issued without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the

¶53

4

¶54

impugned notice 24.02.2025 is liable to be set aside.^{However,respondentNo.4is} directed to consider the explanation of the petitioner^{dated10.02.2025,submittedin} to the notice dated 05.02.2025 under Section 7 of the^{Act,1905,withina} response reasonable period, after providing an opportunity of^{hearingtothepetitioner,and} pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till^{then,therespondentsare} directed not to interfere with the peaceful possession^{andenjoymentofthesubject}

¶55

property.

¶56

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶57

There shall be no order as to costs. 9. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if^{any,shallalsostand}

¶58

closed.

¶59

Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTTDN OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State^ofAndhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶64

The District Collector, Vizianagaram District.

¶65

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram^District. 4. The Tahsildar, Bondapalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 5. One CC to Sri P.Madhu Sudhan, Advocate [OPUC]

¶66