APHC010400302025 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: 20914/2025 Between: 1. KATAMALLI PENCHALAIAH, S/O PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O KALUVAI (VIL), KALUVAI MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ATMAKUR, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KALUVAI MANDAL, KALUVAI, S.P.S.R.NELLORE DISTRICT 5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, KALUVAI VILLAGE, KALUVAI, KALUVAI MANDAL, S.P.S.R.NELLORE 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 a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature 2 of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Tahsildar, Kaluvai Mandal, Kaluvai, S.P.S.R.Nellore District in trying to dispossess the Petitioner from the Land in Sy.No.925, extent Ac. 1.00 cents of Kaluvai (Vil), Kaluvai Mandal, S.P.S.R Nellore District is arbitrary, illegal, without Jurisdiction, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 5 not to dispossess the Petitioner from the Land in Sy. No.925, extent Ac. 1.00 cents of Kaluvai (Vil), Kaluvai Mandal, S.P.S.R Nellore District and pass IA 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 2 to 5 not to dispossess the Petitioner from the Land in Sy.No.925, extent Ac. 1.00 cents of Kaluvai (Vil), Kaluvai Mandal, S.P.S.R Nellore District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CH C KRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.20914 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Tahsildar, Kaluvai Mandal, Kaluvai, S.P.S.R.Nellore District in trying to dispossess the Petitioner from the Land in Sy.No.925, extent Ac.1.00 cents of Kaluvai Village, Kaluvai Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District is arbitrary, illegal, without Jurisdiction, in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 5 not to dispossess the Petitioner from the Land in Sy.No.925, extent Ac.1.00 cents of Kaluvai Village, Kaluvai Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District and to 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: “..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 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 4 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." "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 India 4 , 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 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 5 21 of the Constitution of India. The principles of natural justice demands that the persons who are affected should be heard. 7. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law, as held in Rame Gowda’s case (supra-1). 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s 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 RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 11.08.2025 SNI 6 202 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.20914 of 2025 Date: 11.08.2025 SNI