The Andhra Pradesh High Court affirms that revenue authorities must first pass a speaking order on any explanation or representation provided by an affected party under Section 6 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, before attempting dispossession under Section 7. This clarifies procedural due process, reinforcing the necessity of safeguarding natural justice. The decision follows established precedents and is binding within Andhra Pradesh, offering persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/30397/2025 of THUNGA SRINIVASULU Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh |
| CNR | APHC010588222025 |
| Date of Registration | 03-11-2025 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Justice D Ramesh |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench (Justice D Ramesh) |
| Precedent Value | Binding Precedent within State of Andhra Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms procedural requirement under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 |
| Type of Law | Administrative, Land Law, Natural Justice |
| Questions of Law | Whether authorities can dispossess a person under Section 7 without considering the person’s representation or explanation under Section 6 of the Act. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that when a person served with a notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act submits an explanation or representation, the authorities must pass an appropriate order on that representation as required under Section 6, before proceeding further. Until such an order is passed, authorities are restrained from interfering with the petitioner’s possession. This is necessary to comply with procedural safeguards and natural justice. The court directly disposed of the petition, directing the authorities to follow this procedure. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Orders passed in WP(PIL) No.140 of 2022 (referred to as basis of the respondents’ notice) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The statutory framework (Section 6 and 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act); principles of natural justice; reference to earlier court orders in related PIL. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner was served a notice under Section 7 of the Act regarding supposed land encroachment. He submitted a detailed explanation/representation to all concerned authorities. The respondents attempted to proceed with dispossession without first considering or passing orders on his representation under Section 6. The petitioner alleged this action was arbitrary, violated natural justice, and breached constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Revenue authorities and courts dealing with land dispossession issues; other High Courts |
| Follows | Orders in WP(PIL) No.140 of 2022 (relied on for issuance of impugned notice) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that authorities cannot proceed to dispossess a person upon issue of a notice under Section 7 unless a reasoned order is first passed on any representation/explanation submitted under Section 6.
- The process must strictly observe the principles of natural justice and provide an opportunity of being heard before eviction.
- Lawyers can leverage this precedent to halt dispossession proceedings where authorities have not followed due process under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act.
- The court’s interim protection (status quo) until a decision under Section 6 emphasizes the importance of a procedural safeguard.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court observed that the petitioner had been issued notice under Section 7 of the A.P. Land Encroachment Act, 1905, pursuant to previous orders in WP(PIL) No.140 of 2022.
- The petitioner had already submitted a detailed explanation/representation to the authorities in response to the notice.
- The respondents had not passed any order under Section 6 on the petitioner’s representation before seeking to dispossess him.
- The Court held that it is incumbent upon revenue authorities to consider and pass a speaking order on the party’s representation under Section 6 before taking any coercive action under Section 7.
- Until a decision is made on such representation, authorities are restrained from interfering with possession.
- The court’s direction is based on the statutory procedure and principles of natural justice.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Respondents issued notice under Section 7 without adhering to statutory procedure.
- Explanation/representation was submitted, but no order under Section 6 was passed.
- Interference with possession without due process is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of constitutional rights and principles of natural justice.
Respondent (State)
- Notice was issued based on court directions in a prior public interest litigation (WP(PIL) No.140 of 2022).
Factual Background
The petitioner alleged dispossession from agricultural lands by the Tahsildar (5th respondent), who issued a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. The notice pertained to survey numbers 1339/3 and 1439/5 located at Nagiripadu village, Annamayya District. The petitioner submitted detailed representations on 19-02-2025 and 24-09-2025 contesting the action, but no order on these representations was passed before steps were allegedly taken to interfere with the petitioner’s possession.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 6 and 7, Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905: The court emphasized that Section 6 contemplates an opportunity to submit an explanation, and an order thereon is a prerequisite before action under Section 7.
- No interpretation beyond the straightforward application of the statutory sequence was discussed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms existing statutory and natural justice requirements for dispossession under the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905.