APHC010413912025 , IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH at amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST Sk A -A ■J/.’ o ? o TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21286 OF 2025 Between: 1. Nellipudi Harinadh, S/o. Polaiah, aged about 59 years, R/o. Thamminapatnam Village, Chillakur Mandal, Tirupati District. 2. Sri Nellipudi Narasimha @ Narasaiah, S/o. Polaiah, aged about 58 years, R/o. Thamminapatnam Village, Chillakur Mandal, Tirupati District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, (Revenue Department), Secretariat Building, Velgapudi, Guntur District. . 2. The District Collector, Tirupati District. 3. The Joint Collector, Tirupati District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Gudur, Tirupati District. 5. The Tahsildar, Chillakur, Tirupati District. 6. Sri Nellipudi Polaiah Police, S/o. Mastanaiah, aged about 45 years. 7. Sri Nellipudi Mallikarjuna, S/o. Venkataiah, aged about 40 years. 8. Smt Dammayee Mastanamma, W/o. Ramanaiah, aged about 48 years. 9. Sri Nellilpudi 6oyaraju, S/o. Subbaiah, aged about 50 (Respondents 6 to 9 are R/o. Thamminapatnam Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.) years. ...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 an appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 herein in trying to interfere and dispossess the petitioners herein from the petitioners subject property i.e. land in Sy. No. 85, vide Khata No's. 212 and 213 admeasuring extent of Ac. 1-35 cents situated at Thamminapatnam Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nlellore District at the active instance and instigation of the respondents 6 to 9 herein, inspite of the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No. 115 / 2019 dated 16-06-2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Gudur wherein permanent injunction Decree is granted in favour of these petitioners, further inspite of the representation dated 19-07-2025 . illegal, arbitrary, opposed to the established principles of Law and further violation of Right to Property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 herein to not to, interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands of these Petitioners herein by following due process of law. 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 2 to 5 herein to not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property i.e. land in Sy. No. 85, vide Khata Nos. 212&213 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1-35 cents situated at Thamminapatnam Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District pending ■ disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT K PALLAVI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: I an as in ■ APHC010413912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] 0^ WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21286/2025 Between: 1.NELLIPUDI HARINADH, S/0. POLAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/0. THAMMINAPATNAM VILLAGE. CHILLAKUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2.SRI NELLIPUDI NARASIMHA @ NARASAIAH, S/0. POLAIAH, R/0. THAMMINAPATNAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS VILLAGE, CHILLAKUR MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT SECRETARY, (REVENUE DEPARTMENT). BUILDING. VELGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICTCOLLECTOR,TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 3 THE JOINTCOLLECTOR,TIRUPATIDISTRICT. 4.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GUDUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5 THE TAHSILDAR. CHILLAKUR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 6.SRI NELLIPUDI POLAIAH POLICE, S/O. MASTANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 7.SRI NELLIPUDI MALLIKA.RJUNA, S/O. VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 8.SMT DAMMAYEE MASTANAMMA. W/O. RAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 9 SRI NELLILPUDI BOYARAJU, S/O. SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT (RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9 ARE R/0. 50 YEARS. THAMMINAPATNAM VILLAGE CHILLAKUR MANDAL, SPSR 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 herein in trying to interfere and dispossess the petitioners herein from the petitioners subject property i.e. land in Sy. No. 85, vide Khata No's. 212 and 213 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1-35 cents situated at Thamminapatnam Village. Chitlakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District at the active instance and instigation of 7 the respondents 6 to 9 herein, inspite of the Judgment and Decree in the file of the Hon'ble Civil Judge Court, Gudur wherein permanent O.S. No. 115 / 2019 dated 16-06-2025 on Principal Junior injunction Decree is granted in favour of these petitioners, further inspite of the representation dated 19-07-2025 as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to the established principles of Law and further in violation of Right to Property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 herein to not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands of these Petitioners herein by following due process of law and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 5 herein to not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners property i.e. land in Sy. No. 85, vide Khata No's. 212 & 213 admeasuring an extent of Ac. 1-35 cents Thamminapatnam Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.K PALLAVI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE Petition under Section 151 CPC praying situated at THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.2l286 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...to issue an appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 5 herein in trying to interfere and dispossess the petitioners herein from the petitioners subject property i.e.land in Sy.No.85, vide Khata No's.212 and 213 admeasuring an extent of Ac.1-35 cents situated at Thamminapatnam Village, Chillakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District at the active instance and instigation of the respondents 6 to 9 herein, inspite of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.115/ 2019 dated 16-06-2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Gudur, wherein permanent injunction Decree is granted in favour of these petitioners, further inspite of the representation dated 19-07-2025 as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to the established principles of Law and further in violation of Right to Property guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 herein to not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands of these Petitioners herein by following due process of law and pass such other order or orders...” It is the pleading of the petitioners 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. 4 three-judge Bench Indian law on the 3. In Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu,' a Court, while discussing the of the Hon’ble Apex subject, observed as under; " It is thus clear that so far as the J®" , concerned, the person in peaceful to retain his possession and in order „ nn^session he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser, A rightful owner who has been wrohsMy dispossessed of land may retake ,f - peacefully and without the use of '"“rty 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 so and others Vs. State of Uttar before Hon’ble Supreme Court, with defence of trespasser against true owner. 4. Pradesh^, question cropped up regard to right of private Their Lordships held that true owner has no right to dispossess the in full trespasser was in possession made by Hon’ble the trespasser by use of force, in case of the true owner. Observation knowledge Supreme Court is reproduced as under;- Vs Vishnunarayan and Associates (2002) 4 see 134, held that State interfere with the rights of others authorized by specific provisions of ‘‘In State of W.B. and others (P) Ltd. and another, reported In and its executive officers cannot except where their actions are . law." . and others^, the Hon’ble notice or hearing, neither H.B.Yogalaya Vs. State of U.P Court held that without any show cause 5. In Apex ' (2004)1 see 769 ^{1977) 1 see 188 3 (2004; 13 see 5i8 5 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." In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India^ 6. 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 petitioners should 7. not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law, as held in Rame Gowda’s case (supra-1). 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. 8. AIR 1978 SC 25 6 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous shall stand closed. petitions pending, if any Sd/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, (Revenue Department), State Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Tirupati District. 3. The Joint Collector, Tirupati District. 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, of Andhra Gudur, Tirupati District. 5. The Tahsildar, Chillakur, Tirupati District. 6. One CC to Smt K Pallavi, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, 8. Two CD Copies RAM HIGH COURT 7 f ■ DATED:13/08/2025 5 17 SEP 2025 m, ^ . Current Section , ORDER WP NO. 21286 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS