Yelakala Lakshmana Rao vs The State Of Ap on 24 March, 2025

Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati

Yelakala Lakshmana Rao vs The State Of Ap on 24 March, 2025

                                    ::1::




APHC010146682025

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3329]
                                 ATAMARAVATI
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)




         MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
                   TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

                               PRESENT

THE      HONOURABLE           SRI      JUSTICE    VENKATESWARLU
NIMMAGADDA

                      WRIT PETITION NO: 7520/2025

Between:

Yelakala Lakshmana Rao                        ...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Ap and Others                  ...RESPONDENT(S)



Counsel for the Petitioner:

   1. JYOTHI RATNA ANUMOLU



Counsel for the Respondent(S):

   1. GP FOR REVENUE
                                         ::2::




THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                            W.P.No.7520 of 2025

This Court made the following

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following relief:

“to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the
nature of the writ of MANDAMUS declaring the Order/Notice
vide Rc No.163/2023/S.A, dated 12 03 2025 issued by the
Respondent No.4 under Section 6 of the AP Land
Encroachment Act, 1905 thereby directing the Petitioner herein
to vacate the land admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.10½ Cents
covered in Sy.No.14/1 of Budarayavalasa Mandal,
Vizianagaram District, as illegal, arbitrary unjust and contrary to
the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act,
1905 besides being violative of Principles of Natural justice and
Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and
consequently set aside the same and/or pass.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has received a

notice U/s 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 on 21.02.2025

and immediately, the petitioner herein submitted a detailed and

comprehensive reply dated 26.02.2025 to the Respondent No.4

substantiating that the petitioner herein has not encroached the

subject land and the petitioner established SP Cashews factory in

Sy.No.14-4 adjacent to the Sy.No.14-1 (subject land).

::3::

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is

that the petitioner is in long possession and enjoyment of the property

and his name was also mutated in the revenue records. Therefore,

the petitioner cannot be dispossessed by exercising power under

Section 7 of the Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905. When the

petitioner is in settled possession of the property, the remedy open to

the respondents is to approach the Civil Court in view of the

guidelines issued by the Apex Court in “Government of Andhra

Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao1“. Instead of approaching the

Civil Court to establish the title by the 4th respondent, he issued

notice under Section 7 of the Madras Act, invoking summary

procedure to evict the petitioner from the land, requested to allow the

writ petition.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted

that a notice dated 12.03.2025 was issued under Section 7 of the

Madras Act (Act 03 of 1905), and requested to pass appropriate

orders. In fact, the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 is in force, but

instead of following the procedure under the A.P.Land Encroachment

1
AIR 1982 SC 1081
::4::

Act, notice was issued under the Madras Act 03 of 1905, which is not

applicable to the present alleged encroachment.

5. On perusal of the impugned notice, it is clear that no specific

date and time is fixed for submitting explanation in terms of Section 7

of the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, hence, notice is incomplete. On

this ground, the notice dated 12.03.2025 is liable to be set aside.

However, when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment

of the property, it is the obligation of the State to approach the

competent Civil Court and obtain relief for eviction of the petitioner or

removal of objectionable encroachments. This view is fortified by the

judgment of the Apex Court in “Government of Andhra Pradesh v.

Thummala Krishna Rao” (referred supra). In the said judgment, the

Apex Court candidly held that the Government, in summary

proceedings, cannot unilaterally decide its own title over the property,

and their remedy is only to approach the competent Civil Court

seeking declaration of title. If the said principle is applied to the

present facts of the case, remedy open to the 4th respondent to

approach the competent Civil Court to establish the title and for

recovery of the possession. Hence, the respondents are at liberty to

take appropriate action in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in

“Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao“

::5::

(referred supra). Therefore, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed,

except by following the law laid down by the Apex Court in

“Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao“

(referred supra) and “Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v.

M.Varadappa Naidu2 (Dead) by L.Rs.2“.

6. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No

costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

______________________________________
JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

24.03.2025
krk

2
2004 (1) SCC 769
::6::

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

45

W.P.No.7520 of 2025

24.03.2025
krk