/ APHC010397522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST S TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 20510 OF 2n?j^ \1R\ % '1-' RAO Between: Macharla Venkata Reddy, S/o Mugi Reddy. Cultivation, Aged about 38 Years, Occ R/o Kothapalli Village, Yerragondapallem Mandal, District, Andhra Pradesh-521 111. Prakasam ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur Revenue Division, District. 4. The Tahsildar, Yerragondapallem Mandal, Prakasam District. Revenue Prakasam ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court pleased to issue an Order or direction may be more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in making efforts to delete the name of the petitioner from online revenue records and interfering with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner's agricultural lands in Sy.No.144-4 an extent of 0.40 and Sy.No.144-11 in an extent of Ac.2.00 of in Yerragondapalem Village Prakasam District and further contemplating to create third party interest in respect of the subject lands, without jurisdiction, in violation of the Principles of natural justice and contrary to the rule of law and the sanctity of judicial process and violative and 300A of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the not to disturb the petitioners possession or alter revenue records. as arbitrary, illegal, unjust. of Articles 14,21 respondents lA NO: 1 OF 202fi Petition under Section 151 CPC the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to create praying that in the circumstances stated in any third-party interest in respect of the petitioner’s landed properties, not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over the agricultural lands situated in Sy. No.144-4 (Ac. 0.40) and Sy. No. 144-11 District, and not to alter the (Ac. 2.00) of Yerragondapalem. Prakasam or Webland records during the pendency of revenue the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. Dr.SATTARU RAJANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: ■ip f’ ^ APHC010397522025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE SSB [3330] r .'k PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20510/2025 Between: 1.MACHARLA VENKATA REDDY, S/0 MUGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC:CULTIVATION, R/O.KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, YERRAGONDAPALLEM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-521 111. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MARKAPUR REVENUE DIVISION, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, YERRAGONDAPALLEM MANDAL PRAKASAM 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 Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in making efforts to delete the name of the records and interfering with the peaceful petitioner from online revenue possession of the Petitioner's illegal, Prakasam District and further contemplating to create third party interest in respect of the subject lands, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction, in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the rule of law and the sanctity of judicial process and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of The Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents not to disturb the Petitioners possession or alter revenue records, and passagricultural lands in Sy. No. 144-4 in an extent of Ac. 0.40 and Sy.No. 144-11 in an extent ofAc. 2.00 of Yerragondapalem. w T 7 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 not to create any third- party interest in respect of the petitioner’s landed properties, not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner over the agricultural lands situated in Sy.No.144-4 (Ac. 0.40) and Sy.No.144-11 (Ac. 2.00) of Yerragondapalem, Prakasam District, and not to alter the revenue or Webland records during the pendency of the main writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: I.Dr.SATTARU RAJANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: p f THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 20510 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...to issue an order or direction, more particularly one In the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 4 respondent In making efforts to delete the name of the petitioner from online revenue records and interfering with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner's agricultural lands In Sy.No.144-4 in an extent of Ac.0.40 cents and Sy.No.144-11 In an extent of Ac.2.00 cents of Yerragondapalem Village, Prakasam District and further contemplating to create third party interest in respect of the subject lands, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, without jurisdiction, in violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the rule of law and the sanctity ofjudicial process and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300 A of The Constitution of India, and consequently direct the Respondents not to disturb the Petitioners possession or alter revenue records, and pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest ofjustice”. th 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, reported \n (2004)1 see 769, a three-Judge Bench of 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 even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of p 4 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 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 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 SCO 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 others, reported in (2004) 13 see 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, 6. 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. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law as held by the Rame Gowda’s case that the petitioner who is continue in such possession, he shouldn’t dispossess without being except in 7. accordance with law. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed, and the respondents are 8. directed to dispossess the petitioner in accordance with the established legal procedure. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is considered and disposed of. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC R To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Markapur Revenue Division, Prakasam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Yerragondapallem Mandal, Prakasam District. 5. One CC to M/s. Dr.SATTARU RAJANI, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED:05/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 20510 OF 2025 ^ I I AU5 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS