Mastangari Rangamma Vs the State of Ap

¶1

APHC010029142026

¶2

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

¶3

[3233]

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 1960/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

MASTANGARI RANGAMMA, W/O. CHINNA MADDILETI, AGED 75 YEARS, R/O. 5-149, SC COLONY, ILLURU KOTHA PETA VILLAGE, BANAGAPALLE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT-518 186

¶9

MANDLA RAMA SUBBAMMA,, W/O. VENKATA SWAMY, AGED 58 YEARS, R/O. 28-834-A3, ILLURU KOTHAPETA VILLAGE, BANAGANAPALLE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT- 518 186

¶10

SANJAMALA MOULALA BI,, W/O. SANJAMALA PAMSHA, AGED 38 YEARS, R/O. 19-92-1, ILLURU KOTHAPETA VILLAGE, BARIAGANAPALLE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT - 518 186.

¶11

DAKKA GNANAMMA,, W/O. CHINNA RAMUDU, AGED 85 YEARS, R/O. ILLURU KOTHAPETA VILLAGE, BANAGANAPALLE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT- 518 186.

¶12

SHAIK SAJEEDA KHATOON,, AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. SYED NOOR MAHAMMAD, R/O. 8/1340-1, SAI PETA, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT -516434.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

1. THE STATE OF AP, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SRECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522238.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT518501.

¶17

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE REVENUE DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE RDO, DHONE, NANDYAL DISTRICT - 518222.

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, BANAGAPALLE MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT - 518124.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

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, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly the 4th Respondent in issuing eviction notices dated 26.12.2025, bearing reference numbers Rc.A.630/2025 in terms of section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 without considering the explanation furnished by the Petitioners herein and without following due procedure prescribed under applicable laws as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice

¶21

2

¶22

and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the judgmentlaid down in Jyothi Education Society v. Government ofA.P., (2002) 6 ALD 83consequently direct the Respondents to strictly adhere to law and due process if in any case they want to interfere with the Petitioners possession over the said farm lands and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶23

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 DIRECT the 4th Respondent to not interfere with the possession of the Petitioners farm lands located at Illuru Kothapeta Village, Banaganapalle Mandal, Nandyala District without following due process of law and pass

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶25

1.VARUN BYREDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

The Court made the following Order:

¶31

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

¶32

This Writ Petition was filed questioning the notices issued dated 26.12.2025, under Section 6 of the Madras Act III of 1905/ Andhra Pradesh Encroachment Act, 1905, directing the petitioners to vacate the subject land within 48 hours from the date of service of the said notices on the ground that the petitioners occupied the land in Sy.No.444, which is prescribed by the “Assessed Waste Land” belonging to the Government. Preceding to the said proceedings, notices were issued by the 4^th respondent under Section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act III 1905, dated 18.12.2025, to submit the explanation within seven (07) days from the date of receipt of said notices, alleging that the petitioners are in occupation by way of encroachment of the subject lands in Sy.No.444 belonging to the Government.

¶33

Though the petitioners submitted the explanations to the above said notices separately dated 26.12.2025, the same were not considered for passing the impugned notices under Section 6 of the said act by the 4^th respondent. The reading of the impugned notices, does not disclose the consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioners separately.

¶34

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners are permitted to submit their explanations to the above said notices, issued under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act III 1905, dated 18.12.2025, separately by each petitioner for the said impugned notices

¶35

4

¶36

received within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order enclosing the necessary documents in support of his/her claim. On receipt of the same, pursuant to the above said individual notices dated 18.12.2025, the 4^th respondent shall proceed with the necessary enquiry strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioners giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject lands appropriate decision shall be taken on their own merits separately in respect of each above said individual notices as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (03) months thereafter.

¶37

Pending the above said enquiry, there shall be an order of Status-quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject lands mentioned in the above said impugned notices of Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act III 1905, dated 18.12.2025. Enabling the above said enquiry to be proceeded with by the 4^th respondent, the impugned notices issued under Section 6 of the above said act, dated 26.12.2025 are set-aside herewith.

¶38

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any, deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

Date: 23.01.2026 CVD

¶41

__________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN

Mastangari Rangamma v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mastangari Rangamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Zubair Vs the State of Ap

Guvvala Chinna Subbarao Vs the State of Ap

Ponnam Koteswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Rayanki Yashwanth Kumar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Settippalle Arjun Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rai Thimmappa Vs the State of Ap