Disposed

Alladupalle Mohaboob Sandhani v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026WP/23688/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four writ petitioners challenged eviction notices from forest authorities as illegal and arbitrary. The Single Judge noted the matter was covered by a Division Bench PIL order directing notice service. The court disposed of petitions, directing authorities to act according to rules after hearing, while prohibiting forcible eviction pending such decisions.

What did the court decide?

Directs Forest Authorities to take appropriate decision according to rules after hearing petitioners; prohibits forcible eviction till then; vacates earlier interim orders.

Alladupalle Mohaboob Sandhani Vs the State… — Environment and Pollution | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

[3396]

¶2

APHC010433512026

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOs: 24039, 23681, 23688 and 23823 OF 2026

¶8

Between in W.P.No.24039 of 2026:

¶9

ENDELA RAMI REDDY, S/O. ENDELA BIDELA YALLAREDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O H. NO. 25/986 VASANTHAPETA PRODDATUR, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516360.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 516001

¶14

THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PRODDUTUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 516001

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PRODDATUR (WL) DIVISION, KURNOOL CIRCLE.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Between in W.P.No.23681 of 2026:

¶18

CHINNA ANKANNA GARI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY, S/O. CHINNA ANKANNA GARI VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O. H. NO. 9/123 RAMAESWARAM VILLAGE, PRODDATUR MAANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516360.

¶19

...PETITIONER

¶20

AND

¶21

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶22

THE FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 516001

¶23

¶24

THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PRODDUTUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 516001

¶25

THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PRODDATUR (WL) DIVISION, KURNOOL CIRCLE.

¶26

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶27

Between in W.P.No.23688 of 2026:

¶28

ALLADUPALLE MOHABOOB SANDHANI, S/O. ALLADUPALLE MOHABOOB SHARIF AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCPATION AGRICULTURE, R/O H. NO. 20/486-P-3, RAMAESWARAM VILLAGE, PRODDATUR MAANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516360.

¶29

...PETITIONER

¶30

AND

¶31

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶32

THE FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 516001

¶33

THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PRODDUTUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 516001

¶34

THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PRODDATUR (WL) DIVISION, KURNOOL CIRCLE.

¶35

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶36

Between in W.P.No.23823 of 2026:

¶37

INDELA CHINNA LINGA REDDY, S/O. INDELA YALLAREDDY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE,R/O H. NO. 3-8, BUKKAPATNAM, KADAPA YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 516360.

¶38

...PETITIONER

¶39

AND

¶40

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOREST DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶41

THE FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 516001

¶42

¶43

THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PRODDUTUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 516001

¶44

THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PRODDATUR (WL) DIVISION, KURNOOL CIRCLE.

¶45

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶46

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 to declare the questioning the Notice, bearing Lr.No.R.C.No.34/2017/Pdtr, Dt.10.10.2025, issued by the 3^rd respondent and trying to evict me, as illegal, arbitrary without jurisdiction and unjust, besides being in violation of Principals of Natural Justice and also in violation of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same.

¶47

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶48

P VENKAIAH NAIDU

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶50

GP FOR FORESTS

¶51

The Court made the following:

¶52

COMMON ORDER :

¶53

1. When these matters are taken up for hearing, Ms.Kudupudi Siva Jyothi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests, brought to the notice of this Court that the subject matter is already covered by the order of the Division Bench, dated 29.10.2025 passed in WP(PIL) NO.89 of 2024.

¶54

2. For ready reference, the order is extracted infra:

¶55

¶56

“A copy of the affidavit, dated 08.07.2025, has been handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner in the open Court.

¶57

According to the status report, a survey was conducted which reflected that there are as many as 219 encroachers in Sy.No.558, 266 encroachers in Sy.No.542/4 and 245 encroachers in Sy.No.218/1 in Rameswaram Reserve Forest. Notices to as many as 172 encroachers are stated to have been served out of 219 in Sy. No.558 and 200 encroachers out of 266 in Sy.No.542/4 and 50 encroachers out of 245 in Sy No.218/1.

¶58

Therefore, there are a large number of encroachers who are yet to be served.

¶59

We direct the forest authorities to take appropriate steps for service of notices on the unserved encroachers. Steps be also taken to take the matter forward in accordance with the relevant Rules after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the concerned noticees.

¶60

We would appreciate if the Forest Department on the next date of hearing gives details of its success rate in evicting those who are found to have encroached the reserve forest area. Although an argument has been made that the encroachments have been in existence for some time in the past, yet, in our opinion, it may be open to the Government to rehabilitate them at alternate sites but they cannot be permitted to remain any longer in the reserve forest area.

¶61

¶62

Be that as it may, the action taken report be submitted on or before the next date of hearing as ordered.

¶63

List on 26.11.2025."

¶64

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests would further

¶65

submit that the petitioners’ names and Survey Numbers are also there in the list.

¶66

4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit

¶67

that the petitioners have already submitted their explanation and the present writ petitions may be disposed of in the same lines as ordered by the Division Bench.

¶68

5. Having regard to the above submissions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of, directing the Forest Authorities concerned to take appropriate decision according to the Governing Rules and Law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. Till such time, the petitioners shall not be vacated forcibly.

¶69

Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.

¶70

Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.

¶71

Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

Date: 10.09.2026 Krs

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

¶76

W.P.Nos.24039, 23681, 23688 and 23823 of 2026 ( COMMON ORDER )

¶77

DATE: 10.09.2026

¶78

Krs

Alladupalle Mohaboob Sandhani v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alladupalle Mohaboob Sandhani v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases