Kollipara Naga Rajesh Vs the State of Ap

¶1

APHC010016452026

¶2

[3233]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 1360/2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

KOLLIPARA NAGA RAJESH, S/O VISWESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCCSMALL BUSINESS, R/O.ANGALURU, GUDLAVALLERU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2

¶11

. CHATLA BHAGYA LAKSHMI,, W/O KOLUSU NAGAVEERA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.ANGALURU, GUDLAVALLERU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3.

¶12

KONATHAM SIVA KUMAR,, S/O.PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE COOLIE, R/O.ANGALURU, GUDLAVALLERU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4.

¶13

KONATHAM SURESH,, S/O.PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE COOLIE, R/O.ANGALURU, GUDLAVALLERU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5.

¶14

PANDI LAKSHMANA RAJU,, S/O.VENKATA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE COOLIE, R/O.ANGALURU, GUDLAVALLERU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶15

...PETITIONER(S)

¶16

AND

¶17

THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY - REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. PIN CODE522238. 2.

¶18

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT. PIN CODE521002. 3.

¶19

2

¶20

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUDIVADA DIVISION, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. PIN CODE521301.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR, GUDLAVALLERU MANDAL, GUDLAVALLERU, KRISHNA DISTRICT. PIN CODE521356. 5.

¶22

LOYA ESWARA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O VENKATA RAO AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.TAILORING STREET, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. PIN CODE521301.

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 4TH respondent in trying to disposes the petitioners from their respective houses situated in R.S.No.326 and 329 of Angaluru Village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishan District by issuing proceedings in R.C.A/171/2025, dated 10.07.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of provisions AP Land Encroachment Act and also violating Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the their respective houses and pass

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶26

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 pleased to grant interim direction directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the their respective houses situated in R.S.No.326 and 329 of Angaluru Village, Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishan District by suspending the R.C.A/171/2025, dated 10.07.2025 pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶28

1.B V ANJANEYULU

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶31

3

¶32

The Court made the following Order:

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶34

This writ petition was filed questioning the orders issued in Form-6 by the 4^th respondent dated 10.07.2025 directing the petitioners to remove the encroachments within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said order on the ground that no explanation was submitted to the Form-7 notice issued dated 24.06.2025. The complainant is made as the respondent No.5 but issuance of notice is dispensed with as no prejudice would cause to him even if the writ petition is disposed of in his absence.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners submitted oral explanation to the above said Form-7 notice dated 24.06.2025 but the same was not considered.

¶36

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that as per the impugned notice and orders, the petitioners are required to submit written explanation if any and if so the same will be considered by the respondent authority concerned following the due procedure.

¶37

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to submit their explanation enclosing all the necessary documents in support of their claim for the Form-7 notice issued dated

¶38

4

¶39

24.06.2025 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the 4^th respondent is directed to proceed with the necessary enquiry pursuant to the above said Form-7 notice dated 24.06.2025 issued under A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioners and the 5^th respondent giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject land, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter. For the purpose of conducting the above said enquiry, the impugned order of the 4^th respondent dated 10.07.2025 is set aside herewith and uninfluenced by the same fresh orders shall be passed on its own merits pursuant to the directed enquiry by the 4^th respondent. Pending the above said enquiry, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject land mentioned in the above said impugned order of the 4^th respondent dated 10.07.2025 in respect of the petitioners only.

¶40

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

_________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶43

20.01.2026 NNN

Kollipara Naga Rajesh v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kollipara Naga Rajesh v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Siddamma Vs the State of Ap

Cheerladinne Malyadri Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ippili Pandu Ranga Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Chinna Subbarayudu Vs the State of Ap

V Narasimhulu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanchi Desamma Vs the State of Ap