APHC010158652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 382 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-43 [3483] Shaik Chaan Basha and others ...Appellants Vs. Kakarla Subbamma and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Vallepu Jagadeesh Advocates for Respondents : GP for Revenue, Mr. P. V. N. Kiran Kumar CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 28th April 2025 P C : The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 17.02.2025, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.3916 of 2025. 2. The appellants claim that they are the owners of the land over which the petitioners, who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, have constructed some temporary structures and semi permanent structures. It is stated that respondent Nos.1 to 4 preferred Writ Petition bearing No.3916 of 2025, wherein the official respondent Nos.3 & 4 in the writ petition i.e. the Tahsildar, Budwel Mandal, Y.S.R. District and the Budwel Municipality, were sought to 2 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.382 of 2025 be restrained from interfering with the petitioners’ rights over the properties more elaborately mentioned in the said writ petition. 3. The said petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the official respondents not to interfere with the possession of the petitioners over the subject house properties without following due process of law. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants claim that the appellants are the absolute owners of the land in question, which have been illegally occupied by the petitioners/private respondents herein and therefore the said private respondents have no right to remain in possession of the said property and therefore whatever action the municipal authorities had taken against the encroachers over the land of the appellants was justified in law. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length. 6. We are of the opinion that only because there is a dispute with regard to actual ownership of the property in question, the petitioners cannot be evicted from the land in question, which the petitioners in the writ petition claim was in their possession, except in accordance with law. 7. Law does not envisage anybody to take law in its own hands for purposes of eviction and if at all the petitioners were in occupation of the land in question belonging to the appellants, the only way to evict them would be to take recourse to the provisions of law. 3 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.382 of 2025 8. We do not find any merit in the present writ appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs 4 HCJ & RCJ W.A.No.382 of 2025 69 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.A.No.382 of 2025 Dt: 28.04.2025 kbs