Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Varagala John vs Thummala Krishna Rao (Air 1982 on 6 November, 2025
Author: D Ramesh
Bench: D Ramesh
-/ 1
/
[ 3208 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
THURSDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
rPRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH
WRIT PETITION NO: 30876 OF 2025
Between:
1. Varagala John, S/o. Subbaiah, Aged about 80 years, R/o.
Ganginenipalem Village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District.
2. Varagala Anok, S/o. John, Aged about 47 years, R/o. Ganginenipalem
Village, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District.
3. Krothapalli Suryaprakashrao, S/o. Nageswararao, Aged about 65 years,
R/o. Ganginenipalem Village, G.Konduru Mandal Krishna District.
Petitioners
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur
District.
2. The District Collector, Collectorate Compound, Vijayawada, Krishna
District.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada Revenue Division,
Vijayawada, Krishna District.
4. The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna
District.
Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that
in the circumstancesstated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may
be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly
£ne in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th
respondent in issuing eviction, notice vide proceedings under R.C.B. No.
,318/2025, dated 06.10.2025 under Section 6 of The A.P. Land Encroachment
Act, 1905, by invoking summary proceedings without considering the
[Detitioners objections and without considering the petitioners long standing
possession from his predecessors and without having any right to interfere in
the title/boundaries disputes as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, irrational,
against to the principal of natural justice and in violative of Articles 14, 19, 21
and 300-A of constitution of India" and contrary to the ratio laid down by
theHonble Apex court in Govt, of A.P. Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao (AIR 1982
Sc 1081), and Honble High CoDrTdf A.P. in Podduturi Vasantha Reddy VS.'
Estate Officer, Airports Authority^of India, N.A.D. (MANU/AP/0454/2009) and
consequently set aside the eviction riotice R.C.B. No. 318/2025, dated
06.10.2025, issued by the 4*'' respondent under Section 6 of The A.P. Land
Encroachment Act, 1905.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be
pleased to suspend the eviction notices issued to the petitioner no.1 and 3
vide proceedings R.C.B. No. 318/2025, dated 06.10.2025, issued by the 4^
t • ■' ■ ■ ■ • -
respondent under Section 6 bf The A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905^
Pending disposal of WP 30876 of 2025, on the file of the High Court.
j The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the
affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of
Ms. SANAKA MANASWI Advocate for the Petitioner, GP FOR REVENUE for
the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the Court made the following.
ORDER
"The Writ Petition is filed challenging the eviction nbtice/order dated 06.10.2025 issued by the respondent no.4.
In the first round of litigation, the petitioners have filed the Writ Petition challenging the Section 7 Notice issued under the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short the Act). While disposing the said yVrit Petition, this Court has categorically held to follow the ratio decided
f)y this Court in the judgment in between Kadiyala Sudershan and others vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (2013 (5) ALD 212). Despite the specific directions, the respondents have passed the impugned order hiechanicaily without mentioning any reasons and not even considering the objections/explanation submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the hotice under Section 7 of the Act.
Considering the said subrhissions and on perusal of the impugned Orders which are contrary to the ratio decided by this Court in the judgement referred to abovef ?there shall be stay of all furthef proceedings, as prayed for.
f Post after four (04) weeks.''^
I SD/- K.SRIN1VASA RAJU
//TRUECOPY// ASSlSTANTjR^STRAR
I SECTION OFFICER
To,
i 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, The State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravalthi Guntur District.[By Special Messenger]
2. The District Collector, Collectorate Compound, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
... V
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vijayawada Revenue Division, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
4. The Tahsildar, Mandal Revenue Office, G.Konduru Mandal, Krishna District. (2 to 4 by RPAD) ■f ■■
5. One CC to SRI. SANAKA MANASWI Advocate [OPUC]
6. TwoCCsto GP FOR REVENUE ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]
7. One spare copy . i HIGH COURT DR,J DATED:06/11/2025 POST AFTER FOUR (04) WEEKS ORDER WP.No.30876 of 2025 T'-
O
STAY
3cr. ^ ^ i
CJf
?
c