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) 16263

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
EDUMBAKU VENKATESWARALU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 6926/2026



APHC010130212026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3328]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 6926/2026 Between:

1. EDUMBAKU VENKATESWARALU, S/O SUBRAMANYAM, AGED 52 YEARS, PHOTOGRAPHER, RESIDENT OF D.NO.24-4-140/D, UPPUCHERUVU, REVENUE WARD NO 15, KANDUKUR-523105, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT -

522237.

2. THE KANDUKUR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KANDUKUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. PIN -523105 ...RESPONDENT(S):

1. CH NAGENDRA SARMA

1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri Ch. Nagendra Sarma, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri K.N. Krishna Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development (Respondent No.1) and Sri G.

Lakshminarayana, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2.

2. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the impugned Encroachment Notice dated 26.02.2026 (Ex.P.1). He would submit that without any prior Show Cause Notice calling for explanation from the Writ Petitioner, the Respondent Authorities have straightaway issued the impugned Encroachment Notice alleging that the Petitioner is an encroacher. He would submit that only seven (7) days time is given to the Writ Petitioner to give a reply, which time is inadequate.

3. This Court has perused the impugned Encroachment Notice and noticed that only 7 days time is given to the Writ Petitioner for giving a written explanation to show cause as to why action should not be initiated for illegal encroachment.

4. Having considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to alter the period of 7 days to a period of three (3) weeks for the Writ Petitioner to submit a written explanation along with material documents to establish his case. From the date of receipt of the written explanation, the Respondent Authorities shall conduct an enquiry and hearing of the parties, if necessary or if requested, and pass a Speaking Order in accordance with law within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter.

5. There shall be a further direction to the Respondent Authorities not to take any coercive steps against the Writ Petitioner for a period of two (2)

weeks from the date of receipt of the Speaking Order by the Writ Petitioner.

6. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt:12.03.2026 Note: Issue C.C today, B/o, Vns

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