APHC010357002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 18428/2025 BETWEEN: 1. RAMAVATH YASHODA BAI, D/o. RAAVATH SAKRIYA NAYK, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS R/o.1/000, VENKTARAMPALLI PEDDA THANDA, VENKATAMPALLE VILLAGE, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANANTAPUR. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUNTHAKAL. 5. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, VAJRAKUR. ...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 a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents herein, more particularly the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vaj'rakrur, in interfering with the peaceful position and occupation of the petitioner over the property and Sy.No.70 in Venkatapale village, Anantapur District to the extent of Ac. 1.5 Cents and in trying to 2 disposes the petitioner for said property has been illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violating of the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and SOOA of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents to not interfere with the peaceful possession and occupation of the Petitioner over the property and Sy.No.70 in Venkatapale village, Anantapur District to the extent of Ac. 1.5 Cents and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VIVEKANANDA VIRUPAKSHA 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 a Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents herein, more particularly the action of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Vajrakrur, in interfering with the peaceful position and occupation of the petitioner over the property and Sy.No.70 in Venkatapale village, Anantapur District to the extent of Ac.1.5 Cents and in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the said property, has been illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violating of the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, consequently direct the Respondents to not interfere with the peaceful possession and occupation of the Petitioner over the property and Sy.No.70 in Venkatapale village Anantapur District to the extent of Ac.1.5 Cents and pass such other order or orders.” 2. It is the pleading of the petitioner 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: 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 4 “..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 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 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 5 possession. Counsel appearing for the respondents did not contest this proposition." "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: 06.08.2025 Harin 7 213 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO W.P.No. 18428 OF 2025 Date: 06-08-2025 Harin