(Prayer: 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 Notice issued by the Respondent No. 4 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 19.06.2026 whereby directed the Petitioners to vacate the land in an extent of Ac. 0.06 cents in Sy. No. 484/5 of Vakapadu Village, S. Rayavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to law apart from being violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

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 SUSPEND the operation of the Notice issued by the Respondent No. 4 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 19.06.2026 whereby directed the Petitioners to vacate the land in an extent of Ac. 0.06 cents in Sy. No. 484/5 of Vakapadu Village, S. Rayavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass)

1. This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer:

               “to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the Notice issued by the Respondent No. 4 under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 dated 19.06.2026 whereby directed the Petitioners to vacate the land in an extent of Ac. 0.06 cents in Sy. No. 484/5 of Vakapadu Village, S. Rayavaram Mandal, Anakapalli District as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to law apart from being violative of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same in the interest of justice and pass”

2. The petitioners claim to be the absolute owners, possessors and legal heirs/successors in interest of the assignee of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.12 cents in Sy.No.486/5 of Vakapadu village, S. Rayavaram mandal, Anakapalli district. The said land was initially assigned in favour of the petitioners’ late father Sri. Malli Tatabbai under assignment proceedings bearing DC.No.118/98B. Since the date of assignment, the petitioners have been in continuous possession of the said land by constructing houses and are residing there for the past several decades.

3. While the matter stood thus, the 4th respondent issued notice to the petitioners under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act III of 1905) alleging that the petitioners have occupied/encroached Government land to an extent of Acs.0.06 cents in Sy.No.484/5 (Sub-divided from Sy.No.306) by constructing a house therein, the status of which as per records is FMB/pathway. In reply to the said notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation duly enclosing all the supporting documents i.e. copy of D-patta for Sy.No.486/5, Vakapadu village, adangal extract for the said survey number, pattadar pass book and house tax receipts.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of submitting a detailed explanation pursuant to a notice issued under Section 7 of the Act by enclosing all the relevant documents, the 4th respondent issued the impugned notice under Section 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (Act III of 1905) stating that the petitioners failed produce any documents in support of their case and directed the petitioners to vacate the encroached land within a period of two days from the date of receipt of the said notice. Hence the present writ petition is filed.

5. Heard Sri. Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue.

6. Perused the entire material available on record. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the impugned notice does not refer to the explanation submitted by the petitioner or the documents enclosed to the said explanation. He further contended that no reasons were assigned by the 4th respondent while directing the petitioners to vacate the alleged encroached land. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of this Court in Kadiyala Sudershan and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2013 (6) ALT 42), wherein, this Court held as under:

               “6. From the scheme of the Act, I am of the opinion that the notice of eviction prescribed under Section 6 of the act, which is akin to a decree, needs to be supported by a reasoned order comparable to a judgment. Otherwise, Section 7 of the Act providing for issuance of a show-cause notice would be rendered nugatory or reduced to an empty formality.

               7. Having regard to the fact that respondent No.4 has not passed a separate reasoned order, the impugned notices cannot be sustained and they are accordingly set aside. Respondent No.4 shall consider the claims of the petitioners that they are not in occupation of the lands in Survey Nos.125/1 and 107/1 and pass a reasoned order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.”

7. It is a well known fact that a person in possession of the Government land is liable to be evicted under the provisions of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, wherein the procedure for evicting was laid down as per which, a show cause notice under Section 7 of the Act requires to be given to the person in occupation of the said land; after receipt of explanation along with relevant records, if the competent authority is satisfied that the person in possession of the land is liable to be evicted, the authority has to issue an order under Section 6 of the Act. Unless such order is a reasoned one, the person in occupation of the land would not know as to why an order of eviction is passed against him.

8. In the case on hand, it is evident from the impugned order dated 19.06.2026 that the 4th respondent has not passed a reasoned order for eviction, as such, the impugned notices cannot be sustained and are liable to be set-aside keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in Kadiyala Sudershan and others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra). However, the 4th respondent is at liberty to initiate appropriate action pursuant to the explanation submitted by the petitioners, after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. It is needless to state that till the said process is completed, no coercive steps shall be initiated as against the petitioners.

9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice issued under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, dated 19.06.2026 by the 4th respondent is hereby set-aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.