Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Karnati Lakshmidevamma vs The State Of Ap on 3 July, 2025
APHC010330592025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 16449/2025
Between:
1. KARNATI LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O. VENKATA SESHAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O. ANKUPALLE VILLAGE, PODALAKUR
MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE COMPOUND,
NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NELLORE REVENUE
DIVISION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, MANDAL REVENUE OFFICE, PODALAKUR
MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
5. NAGINENI PENCHALA SUBBAIAH NAIDU, S/O. POLAIAHA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. ANKUPALLE VILLAGE, PODALAKUR
MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
6. ANAM RAVI, S/O. CHINAMASTANAIAH, AGED 42 ABOUT YEARS,
R/O. ANKUPALLE VILLAGE, PODALAKUR MANDAL, SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
NV,J
W.P.No.16449 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 a writ or direction or order more particularly one in
the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in
issuing eviction notice vide proceedings Rc.B. No. 142/2025, dated
21.06.2025 under Section 6 of The Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905,
without furnishing the Survey report, considering Petitioner's objections and
without having any right to interfere in the title/boundaries disputes and
directing the petitioner to evict summarily 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 the Hon'ble Apex court in Govt.of A.P. Vs. Thummala
Krishna Rao (AIR 1982 SC 1081), and Hon'ble High court of A.P. held in
Kadiyala Sudhershan Vs. Govt.of A.P (2013 (5) ALD 212), Podduturi
Vasantha Reddy Vs. Estate Officer, Airports Authority of India, N.A.D. (2009
(6) ALD 524) and Sro Moravaneni Mastan Naidu and Ors Vs. The State of
A.P. and Ors (W.P. No. 12854 of 2025) consequently direct the respondent
authorities to approach the competent civil court for adjudicating the
title/boundaries dispute in regard to the petitioners agriculture land and the
Government land situated in Sy.No. 6- 3 and Sy. No. 5-7 in Ankupalle Village,
Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District 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 direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps in
respect of the land situated in Sy. No. 6-3 and Sy. No. 5-7 in Ankupalle
Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, pending disposal of the writ
petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. SARANU PHANI TEJA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
3
NV,J
W.P.No.16449 of 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
O R D E R:
1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:
"to issue a writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in issuing eviction notice vide proceedings Rc.B. No. 142/2025, dated 21.06.2025 under Section 6 of The Madras Land Encroachment Act, 1905, without furnishing the Survey report, considering Petitioner's objections and without having any right to interfere in the title/boundaries disputes and directing the petitioner to evict summarily 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 the Hon'ble Apex court in Govt.of A.P. Vs. Thummala Krishna Rao (AIR 1982 SC 1081), and Hon'ble High court of A.P. held in Kadiyala Sudhershan Vs. Govt.of A.P (2013 (5) ALD 212), Podduturi Vasantha Reddy Vs. Estate Officer, Airports Authority of India, N.A.D. (2009 (6) ALD 524) and Sro Moravaneni Mastan Naidu and Ors Vs. The State of A.P. and Ors (W.P. No. 12854 of 2025) consequently direct the respondent authorities to approach the competent civil court for adjudicating the title/boundaries dispute in regard to the petitioners agriculture land and the Government land situated in Sy.No. 6-3 and Sy. No. 5-7 in Ankupalle Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District"
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property having purchased the same under the registered sale deed, and her name was also mutated in the revenue records. While the matter stood thus, Notice dated 23.05.2025 under Section 7 of the Madras Act 03 of 1905 and Notice dated 21.06.2025 under Section 6 of the A.P. Land 4 NV,J W.P.No.16449 of 2025 Encroachment Act were issued by the Tahsildar, Podalakuru Mandal, to the petitioner.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in long possession and enjoyment of the property having purchased the same under registered sale deed and her name was also mutated in the revenue records. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be dispossessed by exercising power under Section 7 of the Madras Act. 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 Rao 1 ". Instead of approaching the Civil Court to establish the title by Respondent No.4, he issued Notice dated 23.05.2025 under Section 7 of the Madras Act 03 of 1905 and Notice dated 21.06.2025 under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, invoking procedure to evict the petitioner from the land and requested to allow the writ petition.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue submitted that Notice dated 23.05.2025 under Section 7 of the Madras Act 03 of 1905 and Notice dated 21.06.2025 under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, requested to pass appropriate orders.
1 AIR 1982 SC 1081 5 NV,J W.P.No.16449 of 2025
5. In fact, the A.P.Land Encroachment Act is in force, but instead of following the procedure under the A.P.Land Encroachment Act, the Tahsildar issued Notice dated 23.05.2025 was issued under the Madras Act 03 of 1905 and consequential Notice dated 21.06.2025 under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act. These inconsistent and conflicting actions render the notices inapplicable to the present case of alleged encroachment.
6. 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.
7. If the said principle is applied to the present facts of the case, Notice dated 23.05.2025 under Section 7 of the Madras Act 03 of 1905 and consequential Notice dated 21.06.2025 under Section 6 of the A.P. Encroachment Act are hereby set-aside. Respondent No.4 is at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court to establish the title and for recovery of the possession in accordance with law and in terms of judgment of the Apex 6 NV,J W.P.No.16449 of 2025 Court in "Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao"
(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 Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs2.
8. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
9. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:03.07.2025 SP 2 2004 (1) SCC 769 7 NV,J W.P.No.16449 of 2025 115 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16449/2025 Date:03.07.2025 W SP