APHC010207372025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 10442/2025 BETWEEN: 1. BODDU MANGA, W/O. LATE APPALARAMU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BALIGATTAM VILLAGE, KOTHAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2. BODDU SAI,, S/O. LATE APPALARAMU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, BALIGATTAM VILLAGE, KOTHAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 3. MALIREDDI JYOTHI,, W/O. DEMUDU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, BALIGATTAM VILLAGE, KOTHAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 4. YEDIA NAGAMMA,, W/O. LATE RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, BALIGATTAM VILLAGE, KOTHAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 5. YEDIA YERNIKUMAR,, S/O. LATE RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, BALIGATTAM VILLAGE, KOTHAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 6. YEDIA THARUN,, S/O. LATE RAMARAJU, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, BALIGATTAM VILLAGE, KOTHAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 7. YEDIA APPARAO,, S/O. SIMHACHALAM, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BALIGATTAM VILLAGE, KOTHAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 8. YEDIA RAMUNAIDU,, S/O. ATCHIYYA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, BALIGATTAM VILLAGE, KOTHAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) 2 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT, VIZIANAGARAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAVALASA MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the highhanded actions of the 3rd respondent and their men highhandly trying to dispossess the petitioners from an extent of Ac. 3.03 cents in Sy. No. 141/31 situated in Baligattam Village, Kothavalasa Mandal Vizianagaram District, without following due process of law, as illegal arbitrary, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and rights guaranteed under the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SHAIK MOHAMMED ALTHAF HUSSAIN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the highhanded actions of the 3rd respondent and their men highhandedly trying to dispossess the petitioners from an extent of Ac.3.03 cents in Sy.No.141/31 situated in Baligattam Village, Kothavalasa Mandal, Vizianagaram District, without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice and rights guaranteed under the Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders...” 2. It is the pleading of the petitioners that a person in settled possession of immoveable property is entitled to continue in such possession without being dispossessed save and except in accordance with law. 3. In Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu,1 a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing the Indian law on the subject, observed as under: “..It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned, the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 4 even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law.” 4. In the case of Ram Ratan and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh2, question cropped up before Hon’ble Supreme Court, with regard to right of private defence of trespasser against true owner. Their Lordships held that true owner has no right to dispossess the trespasser by use of force, in case trespasser was in possession in full knowledge of the true owner. Observation made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is reproduced as under:- “In State of W.B. and others Vs Vishnunarayan and Associates (P) Ltd. and another, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 134, held that State and its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others except where their actions are authorized by specific provisions of law.” 5. In, H.B.Yogalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others3, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that without any show cause notice or hearing, neither demolition can take place nor a person may be dispossessed from the property, relevant portion is extracted hereunder: "Otherwise also principles of natural justice demand that a show- cause notice and hearing be given before demolishing or dispossessing a person from the properties of which he is in possession. Counsel appearing for the respondents did not contest this proposition." 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 5 "It is well settled that the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies under, the law." 6. In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the phrase no one shall be deprived of one’s life and liberty except procedure established by law as employed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The principles of natural justice demands that the persons who are affected should be heard. 7. In Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.,5 it was held that the eviction from pavements and slums will lead to deprivation of their livelihood and consequently to the deprivation of the right to life. It was also held that pavement dwellers and slum dwellers are using pavements and other public properties for an unauthorised purpose; that opportunity of hearing cannot be denied to them on ground that they are trespassers; trespass is a tort and that but, even the law of torts requires that though a trespasser may be evicted forcibly, the force used must be no greater than what is reasonable and appropriate to the occasion and, what is even more important, the trespasser should be asked and given a reasonable opportunity to depart before force is used to expel. 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 5 1985 (3) SCC 545 6 8. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law, as held in Rame Gowda’s case (supra-1). 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ subject property, except by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO Date: 11.08.2025 Harin 7 187 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO W.P.No. 10442 OF 2025 Date: 11-08-2025 Harin