■f APHC010420582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21421 OF 2025 Between: Doddam Chandra Sekhar, S/o Ramappa, Aged about 47 years, R/o H. No. 3/46, Patthi Gaddaveedhi, Anantapur Amadagur village and Mandal ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi - Guntur District. The District Collector, Puttaparthi, Sri Sathya Sai District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri, Sri Sathya Sai District The Tahsildar, Amadaguru Mandal Sri Sathya Sai District. The Panchyathi Secretary, Amadaguru Grama Panchyathi, Amadaguru Mandal Sri Sathya Sai District. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...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 a writ order or direction more particularly a one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No. 2 to 5 trying dispossession from petitioners lands in Sy. No. 965 an extent of Ac. 0.008 Cents situated at Amadaguru Mandal and Village, Sri Satya Sai Districts without following due process of laws is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India., and consequentially to direct the Respondents No. 2 to 5 herein to not to interfere with the petitioners property of lands admeasuring Ac. 0.008 cents in Sy. No. 965 situated at Gandlapalle Revnue Village, Chittoor 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 No. 2 to 5 not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy. No. 965 an extent of Ac. 0.008 Cents situated at Amadaguru Mandal & Village, Sri Satya Sai Districts without following due process of law, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S S LAKSHMI PRAMEELA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010420582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special OrlginaUurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 21421/2025 aiiis [3330] i r- 1.DODDAM CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/0 RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/0 H. NO. 3/46, PATTHI GADDAVEEDHl, AMADAGUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL. ANANTAPUR ...PETITIONER AND 1 THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI SECRETARY, BUILDINGS, 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUTTAPARTHI, SRI SATHYA 3.THE*^R'^^NUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADIRI, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT 4.THE .. DISTRICT 5.THE PANCHYATHI DISTRICT GUNTUR TAHSILDAR, AMADAQURU MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI PANCHYATHI SECRETARY, AMADAGURU GRAMA AMADAGURU MANDAL SRI SATHYA SAI ...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 a writ order or direction more particularly a one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No. 2 to 5 trying dispossession froni petitioners lands in Sy. No. 965 an extent of Ac. 0.008 Cents situated at Amadaguru Mandal and Village, Sri Satya Sai Districts without following due process of laws is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India., and consequentially to direct the Respondents No. 2 to 5 herein to not to interfere with the petitioners property of lands admeasuring Aa 0 008 cents in Sy. No. 965 situated at Gandlapalle Revnue Village, Chittoor District and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents No. 2 to that in the praying 2 5 not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy. No. 965 an extent of Ac. 0.008 Cents situated at Amadaguru Mandal & Village, Sri Satya Sai Districts without following due process of law, pending disposal of the main writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.S LAKSHMI PRAMEELA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.21421 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 5 trying dispossession from petitioners lands in Sy.No.965 an extent of Ac.0.008 Cents situated at Amadaguru Mandal and Village, Sri Satya Sai Districts without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the Respondents No.2 to 5 herein to not interfere with the petitioner’s property of lands admeasuring Ac.0.008 cents in Sy.No.965 situated at Gandlapalle Revnue Village, Chittoor District and to such other order or orders...” to pass 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,^ 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 d trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do (2004)1 see 769 4 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.” In the case of Ram Ratan and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh^, 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;- 4. “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^, 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 dispossessing a person from the properties of which he is in possession. Counsel appearing for the respondents did not contest this proposition." or ^ {1977) 1 ^CC 188 U2004) 13 ^CC 518 -i 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*, 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. 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). 7. 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. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ISTRAR assistant R^ SECTION OFFICER 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi - Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Puttaparthi, Sri Sathya Sai District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kadiri, Sri Sathya Sai District 4. The Tahsildar, Amadaguru Mandal $ri Sathya Sai District. 5. The Panchyathi Secretary, Amadaguru Grama Panchyathi, Amadaguru Mandal Sri Sathya Sai District 6. One CC to Sri. S Lakshmi Prameela, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCS to GP For Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CD Copies. //TRUE COPY// To, AL HIGH COURT DATED:13/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 21421 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS