APHC010402962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No: 20678 OF 2025 Between: K. Dayakar Reddy, S/o. K.Balachandra Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o.D.No.27-1-898/4, Beside Sub Registrar Office, Balaji Nagar, Nellore District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, VelagapudI, Amaravati District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati, Tirupati District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District. 4. The Tahsildar, K.V.B Puram Mandal, Tirupati District. 5. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Aranya Bhavan, APIIC Towers, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 6. The Divisional Forest officer. Forest Department, Tirupati District. 7. The District Forest Officer and Conservator, Forest Department, Tirupati District 8. The Forest Range Officer, Forest Department, Puttur Range, Tirupati District. Guntur ...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 i pleased to issue an order or direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent authorities in trying to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from his land in an extent of A.c.0.92 cents situated in Sy.No. 356/10, and an extent of A.c.1.58 cents situated in Sy.No.355/8 of Kalatthuru Village K.V.B Puram Mandal, Tirupati District, without issuing any notice and without following due process of law as highly arbitrary illegal null and void and against norms of public policy and principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights apart from Article 300A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent authorities herein not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said subject lands. 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 t direct the respondent authorities herein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petition land in an extent of A.c.0.92 cents situated in Sy.No.356/10, and an extent of A.c.1.58 cents situated in Sy.No.355/8 of Kalatihuru Village K.V.B Puram Mandal, Tirupati District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VAJJA CHETHAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 8: GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following order: APHC010402962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3330] WM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 20678/2025 Between; 1.K. DAYAKAR REDDY, S/0. K.BALACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, 898/4, BESIDE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE NELLORE DISTRICT R/0 D NO.27-1- BALAJI NAGAR, ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKALAHASTI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR DISTRICT. 5.THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, FOREST DEPARTMENT, ARANYA BHAVAN, APIIC TOWERS, MANGALAGIRI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6.THE DIVISIONAL FOREST DEPARTMENT, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 7 THE DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER AND CONSERVATOR, FOREST DEPARTMENT, TIRUPATI DISTRICT 8.THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST DEPARTMENT, PUTTUR RANGE, TIRUPATI DIST. SECRETARIAT K.V.B PURAM MANUAL, TIRUPATI OFFICER, FOREST ...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 or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in trying to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from his land in an extent of Ac.0.92 cents situated in Sy.No.356/10, and an extent of Ac.1.58 cents situated in Sy.No.355/8 of Kalatthuru village, K.V.B Puram Mandal, Tirupati District, without " ■■ issuing any notice and without following due process of law as highly arbitrary illegal null and void and against norms of public policy and principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights apart from Article 300A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent authorities herein not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said subject lands and to pass 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 respondent authorities herein not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petition land in an extent of Ac.0.92 cents situated in Sy.No.356/10, and an extent of A.c 1.58 cents situated in Sy.No.355/8 of Kalatthuru village K.V.B Puram Mandal, Tirupati District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VAJJA CHETHAN KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S); 1.GP FOR REVENUE 2.GP FOR FORESTS The Court made the following: pass 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 20678 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 or writ more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities In trying to interfere and dispossess the petitioner from his land In an extent of Ac.0.92 cents situated in Sy.No.356/10, and an extent of Ac.1.58 cents situated in Sy.No. 355/8 of Kalatthuru village, K.V.B Puram Mandal, Tirupati District, without Issuing any notice and without following due process of law as highly arbitrary Illegal null and void and against of public policy and principles of natural justice and violative of fundamental rights apart from Article 300A of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent authorities herein not to dispossess the petitioner from the above said subject lands and pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. norms It is the pleading of the petitioner that a person in settled possession of immoveable property is entitled to continue in such without being dispossessed save and except in 2. possession accordance with law. 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 3. is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such use reasonable force to keep out a possession he may even trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the 4 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.” 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 possession in full knowledge of the true owner. Observation made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is reproduced as under;- 4. was in “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 \/s. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 518 the apex Court held that without any show notice or hearing neither demolition can take place nor a person may be dispossessed from the property, to quote relevant portion: cause "Otherwise also principles of natural justice demand that a show- cause notice and hearing be given before demolishing dispossessing a person from the properties of which he is in possession. Counsel appearing for the respondents did not contest this proposition." or 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." In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the phrase 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 are affected should be heard. 6. no persons who 7. Hence, 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 accordance with law. 8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner, except following the due procedure as contemplated in law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- NNAGAMMA ASSISTANT TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, 'VelagapudI, Amaravati,Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati, Tirupati District, t 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikalahasti, Tirupati District. 4. The Tahsildar, K.V.B Puram Mandal, Tirupati District. 5. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, Aranya Bhavan, APIIC Towers, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 6. The Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Department, Tirupati District. 7. The District Forest Officer & Conservator, Forest Department, Tirupati District. 8. The Forest Range Officer, Forest Department, Puttur Range, Tirupati Dist. 9. One CC to Sri Vajja Chethan Kumar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 10. [OUT 11. Two CCs to GP for Forests, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT 12. Two CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:06/08/2025 0 ^ I 02 SEP 2025 5 Current Section .^ ORDER WP No.20678 OF 2025 DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS