Velicheti Sundara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

VELICHETI SUNDARA RAO,, S/O. V. VEERASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 33-8-25, KANCHIRAJUVARI STREET, OPP SATYA HOMES, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI534211

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522001.

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MARKAPURAM, ANDHRA PRADESH

¶15

THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER/TAHSILDAR, VELIGANDLA MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 an order or orders or direction or a writ one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the Impugned Notice vide R.C.DT./58/2026, dated 02.04.2026 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles Natural Justice and in violation Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution

¶18

2

¶19

of India and consequently Suspend the Impugned Notice vide R.C.DT./58/2026, dated 02.04.2026 and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 respondents not to dispossess and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner schedule property an admeasuring Ac. 16.42 cents in total situated in K.K.B. Kandrika Village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.THRIPURAM KARTHIK CHANDRA MOULI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

3

¶27

The Court made the following Order:

¶28

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

¶29

This writ petition is filed questioning the notice issued by the 3^rd respondent dated 02.04.2026 under Section 7 of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 alleging that the petitioner encroached upon the government land as detailed in the schedule given in the said notice in total to an extent of Ac.22.47 cents out of Ac.29.57 cents in Sy.Nos.1, 2, 13, 14-1, 15-3, 14-2 & 18-2 respectively for different extents described as Vagu and Anadheenam land situated in K.K.B.Kandriga village, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District, West Godavari District. Under the said impugned notice dated 02.04.2026, the petitioner was asked to submit explanation if any on or before 08.04.2026 but the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said impugned notice dated 02.04.2026 of the 3^rd respondent was sent in Whatsapp on day before yesterday i.e., on 06.04.2026. Immediately, the petitioner gave explanation to the 3^rd respondent dated 06.04.2026. Without considering the same, there is a threat of highhanded action from the respondent No.3.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the explanation of the petitioner will be considered by the 3^rd respondent following the due procedure.

¶31

4

¶32

In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to submit explanation enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim to the above said notice of the 3^rd respondent dated 02.04.2026 within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of such explanation from the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent is directed to proceed with the necessary enquiry pursuant to the above said notice dated 02.04.2026 strictly in accordance with law by hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner giving due opportunity, upon verification of the records and the subject lands, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter. Pending enquiry, there shall be an order of status quo as on today to be maintained with respect to the subject lands of the alleged encroachment as detailed in the schedule of the notice of the 3^rd respondent dated 02.04.2026.

¶33

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Interim order, if any,

¶34

deemed to have been vacated. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

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

¶36

closed.

¶37

_________________________ JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶38

08.04.2026 NNN

Velicheti Sundara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Velicheti Sundara Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

P. Alisher Khan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Ap

Smt Gownipalli Reddemma Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K Subrahmanyam Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kosu Paramma Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Ganta Lakshmi, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh