Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Kakarla Subbamma vs The State Of Ap on 28 July, 2025
APHC010388252025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 19625/2025
Between:
1. KAKARLA SUBBAMMA, W/O.THIRUPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50
YEARS, OCC COOLI, R/O.D.NO.6-4-660, SUNDARAIAH COLONY,
REVENUE WARD NO.6, BUDWEL, YSR DISTRICT, KADAPA.
2. CHUPPALAVENKATARAMANA,, W/O.CHUPPALALAKSHAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC COOLI, R/O.D.NO.6-4-675,
SUNDARAIAH COLONY, REVENUE WARD NO.6 BUDWEL, YSR
DISTRICT, KADAPA.
3. CHUPPALARAMADEVI,, CHUPPALLLAVENKATARAMANA, AGED
ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC COOLI,R/O.D.NO.6-4-674, SUNDARAIAH
COLONY, REVENUE WARD NO.6 BUDWEL, YSR DISTRICT,
KADAPA.
4. M.VENKATASUBBAMMA,, W/O. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT
55 YEARS, OCC COOLI, R/O.D.NO.6-4-661, SUNDARAIAH
COLONY, REVENUE WARD NO.6, BUDWEL, YSR DISTRICT,
KADAPA.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS,VELAGAPUDI,GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, BUDWEL MANDAL, YSR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
Page 2 of 5 SRS,J
W.P.No.19625 of 2025
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 appropriate Writ, Order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings
in Ref.No.A/52/2025, dated 16-07-2025 and 23-07-2025 passed under
Section 6 of Madras Act III of 1905 and directed petitioners to vacate the
house property bearing D.nos. 6-4-660, 6-4-675,6-4-674, and 6-4-661 ( 3
cents each), in Sy.No.1003 of Madakalavaripalli, Sundaraiah Colony,
Revenue Ward No.6, Budwel, YSR District, Kadapa, without considering our
reply, dated 03-04- 2025 as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the settled legal
position, apart from being violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to
petitioners under Articles, 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India, and
consequently setaside the same and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 proceedings in Ref.No.A/52/2025, dated 16-07-2025
and 23-07-2025 passed under Section 6 of Madras Act III of 1905 passed by
the respondent No.3 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. P V N KIRAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
::ORDER:
:
Heard Sri PVN Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
B.V. Satayanarayana, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for
the respondents.
2. A notice under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short
‘the Act’) was issued by Tahsildar, Gopavaram, vide Ref:A/52/2025 dated
23.07.2025 pointing out encroachment of land to an extent of Ac.0-03 cents
Page 3 of 5 SRS,J
W.P.No.19625 of 2025
each in survey No.1003, Madakalavari Palli Village, Gopavaram Mandal,
Y.S.R. Kadapa District, by the petitioners 2 and 3. Earlier, the petitioners filed
W.P.No.9586 of 2025 and the same was disposed of on 10.04.2025, directing
respondent No.3 therein to consider the explanation dated 03.04.2025
submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, orders
vide Ref.A/52/2025 dated 23.07.2025, under Section 6 of the Act, were
passed by respondent No.3 against petitioners 2 and 3, by mentioning that ‘no
reply was submitted within stipulated time’. Impugning the said orders, the
above writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners
submitted an explanation through registered post, and the receipts of the
registered post are filed at page No.42 of the material papers. He would
submit that the order dated 10.04.2025 in W.P.No.9586 of 2025 would
disclose about submission of an explanation dated 03.04.2025, by the
petitioners. In fact, the Court directed respondent No.3 therein to consider the
petitioners’ explanation and pass appropriate orders.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue would fairly submit
that respondent No.3 will consider the petitioners’ explanation, dated
03.04.2025.
5. As seen from the orders impugned, the Tahsildar, Gopavaram, pointed
out that ‘no reply was submitted within the stipulated time’ and concluded that
the petitioners are in illegal occupation of government land. Consequently, the
Thasildar directed the encroachers to vacate the said land within 48 hours
from the receipt of the order.
6. Thus, despite the direction given by the Court in W.P.No.9586 of 2025,
the Tahsildar, passed an order under Section 6 of the Act against petitioners 2
and 3, even without considering the explanation dated 03.04.2025. The order
Page 4 of 5 SRS,J
W.P.No.19625 of 2025
impugned suffers from non-consideration of explanation and hence, it violates
principles of natural justice.
7. As per the material available on record, no orders are passed against
petitioners 1 and 4.
8. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is partly
allowed in respect of petitioners 2 and 3. The orders passed by Tahsildar,
Gopavaram, vide Ref:A/52/2025 dated 23.07.2025 against petitioners 2 and 3
in respect of Ac.0.03 cents each in survey No.1003, Madakalavari Palli village,
Gopavaram Mandal, YSR District, are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted
to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 shall consider the objections submitted
by petitioners 2 and 3 and pass a reasoned order as per law, by giving an
opportunity of hearing to petitioners 2 and 3, as expeditiously as possible,
within four weeks from the receipt of a copy of the order.
Till an order is passed, respondent No.3 shall not dispossess the
petitioners 2 and 3 from Ac.0.03 cents each in survey No.1003, Madakalavari
Palli village, Gopavaram Mandal, YSR District.
Since no orders are passed against petitioners 1 and 4, this Court, at
this juncture, is not granting any relief to them. However, liberty is given to
them to file a writ petition as and when the cause of action arises. No costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Date: 25.07.2025
ikn
Page 5 of 5 SRS,J
W.P.No.19625 of 2025
175
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 19625 of 2025
Date: 28.07.2025
IKN