APHCOI0387702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) P TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20211 OF 2025 Between: A H Prameelamma, W/o. K.Govinda Rajulu, Aged 40 years, R/o. Door No.5- 11, Kyampuram Village, Haresamudram Post, Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. The District Collector, Satya Sai District, Puttaparthi. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda Division, Penukonda, Satya Sai District District. The Tahsildar, Madakasira Mandal Satya Sai District Hanumesh, S/o Giriyappa, Aged 44 years, R/o. Kyampuram Village,Haresamudram Post Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai District. Adilakshmi, W/o Giriyappa, Aged 38 years, R/o. Kyampuram Village, Haresamudram Post Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai District. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ...Respondents 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 any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners house admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy.No.565-1, of Kyampuram Village, Haresamudram Post, Satya Sai District without issuing any notice, without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, Madakasira Mandal, the Consequently direct the respondents herein not to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the petitioners House Site an extent of Ac. 0.03 of Kyampuram Village, Haresamudram Post, cents in Sy.No.565-1 Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners House Site admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.03 of Kyampuram Village, Haresamudram Post, cents in Sy.No.565-1 Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: -— The Court made the following order: APHC010387702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20211 OF 2025 Between: 1. A H PRAMEELAMMA, , W/o. K.Govinda Rajulu, Aged 40 years, R/o. Door No.5-11, Kyampuram Village, Haresamudram Post, Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai District ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Velagapudi, Guntur Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat District. 2. The District Collector, Satya Sai District, Puttaparthi. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda Division Penukonda, Satya Sai District District. 4. The Tahsildar, Madakasira Mandal Satya Sai District 5. Hanumesh, S/o Giriyappa, Aged 44 years, R/o. Kyampuram Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai Village,Haresamudram Post District. 2 trr,j W.P.N0.2021 JF2025 6. Adilakshmi, W/o Giriyappa, Aged 38 years, R/o. Kyampuram Village,Haresamudram Post District. Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai ...Respondents 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 tomay be pleased to issue any writ or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners house admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy.No.565-1, of Kyampuram Village, Haresamudram Post, Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai District without issuing any notice, without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice, Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, Consequently direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners House Site extent of Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy.No.565-1, of Kyampuram Village, Haresamudram Post, Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai District and to pass such an lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents herein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners House Site admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy.No.565-1, of Kyampuram Village, 3 TRR,J W.P.N0.202110F2025 Haresamudram Post, Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: M CHINNAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: 4 TRRJ W.P.N0.202110F2025 ORDER: The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to declare the action of respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners house admeasuring an extent of Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy.No.565-1, of Kyampuram Village, Haresamudram Post, Madakasira Mandal, Satya Sai District without issuing any notice, without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary. 2. It is specific case 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. In Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, reported in (2004) 1 see 769, a three-Judge Bench of Apex eourt, 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 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.” 3. 4. In the case of Ram Ratan and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1977(1 )SCC 188, question cropped up before Supreme Court with regard to right of private defence of trespasser against true owner. Their Lordships held that true ■ ' ^ I ' 5 TRR, W.P.N0.2021''Fjf202 owner has no right to dispossess the trespasser by use offeree 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:- 5. In State of W.B. and others \/s Vishnunarayan Associates (P) Ltd. and another, reported in (2002) 4 SCO 134 and 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. 12. In, H.B. Yogalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2004) 13 SCO 518 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, to quote relevant portion: "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." "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." In the celebrated case of Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 25, 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. 6. 6 TRR,J W.P.NO.20211 OF 2025 7 Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law, as held by the Ramegowda’s case. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, and the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner without following the established legal procedure. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. 7. 8. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY^EGiSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Satya Sai District, Puttaparthi. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Penukonda Division, Penukonda, Satya Sai District District. 4. The Tahsildar, Madakasira Mandal Satya Sai District 5. One CC to Sri M Chinnapa Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:05/08/2025 ORDER WPNO. 20211 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS