Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17279

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J
Harijana Muthamma – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 26609/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: KALE VIJAYA RAJU
For the Respondents: GP FOR HOME, GP FOR REVENUE, GANTA EDIGA RAKESH GOUD

An administrative eviction order issued under the Land Encroachment Act is procedurally invalid if the authority fails to formally consider and address the explanation submitted by the occupant in response to the show-cause notice.

Headnote:(A) AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Sections 6, 7 - Eviction proceedings - Failure to consider explanation to show-cause notice - Order passed without considering objections is unsustainable in law - Principles of natural justice demand that when a statutory authority issues a notice, the response thereto must be considered before passing a final order. (Paras 2, 6, 9)

(B) Administrative Law - Writ of Mandamus - Judicial review of administrative action - Validity of an order must be judged by reasons contained within the order itself and cannot be supplemented by later affidavits or external reasons. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an eviction order issued by the Tahasildar concerning agricultural land, alleging that notice under the AP Land Encroachment Act was served and an explanation subsequently submitted, which the authority failed to consider. The respondent authority argued that the petitioner was an illegal encroacher and that internal village inquiries supported the reallocation of the land.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the impugned order of eviction was legally flawed as it failed to demonstrate that the petitioner's explanation to the notice was addressed or considered. Relying on established precedents, the court set aside the order and directed a fresh consideration.

Issues: Whether the eviction order under Section 6 of the AP Land Encroachment Act is valid if the authority failed to consider the explanation submitted by the occupant in response to a Section 7 notice.

Ratio Decidendi: Statutory authority must strictly observe procedural fairness; an order failing to address the evidence or explanations provided by the affected party is arbitrary and legally untenable.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned order set aside with direction for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. challenge to administrative eviction order for procedural lapses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. conflicting claims of possession and land status. (Para 4 , 5)
3. requirement to consider explanations in statutory proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. setting aside order and remanding for reconsideration. (Para 11)

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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No. 4 is issuing the Eviction order vide Rc. (A) 284/2022 dated 15.09.2023 under section 6 of AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and Order Under section 145 of CRPC dated 03.07.2023 without considering explanation as illegal and arbitrary and against the orders of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 18955 of 2015 dated 13.12.2022 and consequently to suspend the Order dated 15.09.2023 and Order dated 03.07.2023 by directing the Respondent 4 to not to interfere the peaceful possession of the petitioner land in an extent of Ac. 2.89 cents situated at Showlahalli village, Matralayam Mandal and pass orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.KALE VIJAYA RAJU

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME

2.GP FOR REVENUE

3.GANTA EDIGA RAKESH GOUD

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.4 in issuing the Eviction order vide Rc.(A) 284/2022 dated 15.09.2023 under Section 6 of AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and Order under Section 145 of CRPC dated 03.07.2023 without considering explanation as illegal and arbitrary and against the orders of this Hon’ble Court in WP No.18955 of 2015 dated 13.12.2022 and consequently to suspend the Order dated 15.09.2023 and Order dated 03.07.2023 by directing the Respondent 4 to not to interfere the peaceful possession of the petitioner land in an extent of Ac.2.89 cents situated at Showlahalli village, Mantralayam Mandal and pass such other order or orders…..

2. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the orders of the 4th respondent-Tahsildar issued vide proceeding in RC No.284/22 dated 15.09.2023, wherein, the 4th respondent directed the petitioner herein to evict the land in Survey No.19/B1A to an extent of Ac.2.89 cents of Showlahalli village, Mantralayam Mandal, inter alia observed that if the petitioner unauthorizedly reenters and occupies the above land, which is already evicted, shall be punishable with imprisonment up to 6 months or fine up to Rs.1000/- or with both U/Sec-6(3) of A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The said order was under challenge on the ground that the petitioner has offered explanation to the notice issued under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act), dated 03.07.2023 and the 4th respondent has not considered the explanation and delivered the impugned proceedings. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned proceedings and to remand back to the 4th respondent-Tahsildar to pass afresh orders, after considering the explanation officered by the petitioner dated 11.07.2023.

3. On careful consideration of the explanation offered by the petitioner, it is emphasised that the petitioner is having land in Sy.No.19/B1A to an extent of Ac.2.89 cents in Showlahalli village, Mantralayam Mandal and DKT Patta was granted in R.Dis.No.50/DAR/10/95 dated 05.10.1995 and previously his ancestral are also in possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 2015, when the 4th respondent threatened to evict the petitioner from the possession, the petitioner filed W.P. No.18955/2015. The erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide order dated 13.12.2022, directed the respondents not to interfere with the pea

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17279

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHTarlada Rajasekhar Rao, JHarijana Muthamma – AppellantVersusState Of AP – RespondentWRIT PETITION No. 26609/2023

An administrative eviction order issued under the Land Encroachment Act is procedurally invalid if the authority fails to formally consider and address the explanation submitted by the occupant in response to the show-cause notice.

Cases Referred (3)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J
Harijana Muthamma – Appellant
Versus
State Of AP – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No. 26609/2023