SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 13085

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B KRISHNA MOHAN
SYED KAREEM SAHEB – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 7643/2026



APHC010143242026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3233]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 7643/2026 Between:

1. S YED KAREEM SAHEB, S/O SYED MEERA SAHEB AGED ABOUT

77 YEARS, R/O. H.NO.1-57, PURINI VILLAGE, ALLURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 524315.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

522238.

2. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 524315.

3. T HE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KAVALI REVENUE DIVISION, ALLURU MANDAL SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 524315.

4. T HE TAHSILDAR, ALLURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

524315.

5. T HE MANDAL REVENUE INSPECTOR PURINI VILLAGE, ALLURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 524315.

6. T HE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, PURINI VILLAGE, ALLURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 524315.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 action of the Respondents in trying to demolish/disposes the petitioner from his dwelling house admeasuring in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents of land in Survey No. 609-A with the total extent of Ac.500.11 cents situated in Purini Village, Alluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, without considering the petitioner and other villagers explanations dated 04-03-2026 and 07-03-2026 submitted to notice dated 28-02-2026 issued under section 7 of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 by the 4th respondent in highhandedly taking steps to demolish the petitioners Houses situated in above said land, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural Justice, contrary to law, discriminatory, violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 and the Constitutional Right guaranteed under Article 300- A of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the notice of the 4th respondent dated 28.02.2026 and further direct the Respondents not to interfere or demolish the House of the petitioner constructed in above said extent of land in Survey No. 609-A of Purini Village, Alluru Mandal, 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 stay all further proceedings pursuant to the notice of the 4th respondent dated 28.02.2026, including dispossession/demolition of the petitioner’s House constructed admeasuring in an extent of Ac.0.03 cents, in Survey No. 609-A situated in Purini Village, Alluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. T VENU GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following Order:

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the notice issued by the 4th respondent dated 28.02.2026 under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, alleging that the petitioner illegally encroached upon the Government Land to an extent of Ac.0.0200 out of Ac.500.11 in Survey No.609-A of Purani Village, the nature of which is Tank Poramboku, to show cause within fifteen (15) days by submitting explanation from the date of receipt of said notice.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted explanation dated 07.03.2026 but the same was not considered and there is a shortage of high-handed action from the 4th respondent.

4. On the other hand, the explanation of the petitioner would be considered by the 4th respondent following the due procedure.

5. In vie

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top