APHC010427352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22371 OF 2025 Between: Sarvani Rahamathulla Khan, S/o. Rawoof Khan, Aged 51 years, Occ Business, R/o. Main Bazar, Chinnamandem Village Mandal, Annamayya District. (Erstwhile Y.S.R Kadapa District). ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District at Rayachoty. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoty, Annamayya District. 4. The Tahsildhar, Chinnamandem Mandal Annamayya District. 5. Shaik Saabjan, S/o. Shaik Ameer Saab, Aged 70 years, OccBusiness R/o. Bustand Road, Chinnamandem Village Mandal Annamayya District. 6. Afkhan Rehaman Khan, S/o. Abbas AN Khan, Aged 50 years, Occ Business R/o. Main Bazar, Chinnamandem Village Mandal Annamayya District. ...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 one in the nature % of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondent in interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the agricultural land in an extent of Ac. 0.35 cents out of Ac. 0.51 cents situated in Sy.No 305/1 and in an extent of Ac. 1.41 cents covered by in Sy.Nos. 290/2, 291/1, 293/5, 302/1, 303/6 and 306/3 of Chinnamandem Village and Mandal, Annamayya District (Erstwhile Y.S.R Kadapa District) without following due process of law.. as illegal, irregular, irrational and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to interfere in any manner with the civil dispute pending with petitioner possession over his aforesaid property lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents particularly 4th respondent not to interfere any manner with petitioners possession over his property in an extent of Ac. 0.35 cents out of Ac. 0.51 cents situated in Sy.No 305/1 and in an extent in of Ac. 303/6 and District 1.41 cents covered by in Sy.Nos. 290/2, 291/1, 293/5, 302/1 306/3 of Chinnamandem Village and Mandal, Annamayya (Erstwhile Y.S.R Kadapa District) nor insist him to deliver the possession thereof to the custody of respondents 5 6, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KISHORE KUMAR KATARI Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents No.5,6: -— The Court made the following order: c J APHC010427352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22371/2025 Between; 1.SARVANI RAHAMATHULLA KHAN, S/0. RAWOOF KHAN, AGED 51 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/0. MAIN BAZAR, CHINNAMANDEM VILLAGE MANUAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. (ERSTWHILE Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONALOFFICER, RAYACHOTY, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDHAR, CHINNAMANDEM MANUAL ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5.SHAIK SAABJAN, S/0. SHAIK AMEER SAAB, AGED 70 R/0. BUSTAND ROAD, MANUAL ANNAMAYYA YEARS, OCCBUSINESS CHINNAMANDEM VILLAGE DISTRICT. 6.AFKHAN REHAMAN KHAN, S/0. ABBAS AN KHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS CHINNAMANDEM VILLAGE DISTRICT. R/0. MAIN BAZAR, MANDAL ANNAMAYYA ...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 one in the nature of WRIT OF declaring the action of the respondents particularly 4th respondent in interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the agricultural land in an extent of Ac. 0.35 cents out of Ac. 0.51 cents MANDAMUS 2 situated in Sy.No 305/1 and in an extent of Ac. 1.41 cents covered by in Sy.Nos. 290/2, 291/1, 293/5, 302/1, 303/6 and Chinnamandem Village and Mandal, Annamayya District (Erstwhile Y.S.R Kadapa District) without following due process of law., illegal, irregular, irrational and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent not to interfere in any manner with the civil dispute pending with petitioner possession over his aforesaid property and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 306/3 of as 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 pleased to direct the respondents particularly 4th respondent not to interfere in any manner with petitioners possession over his property in an extent of Ac. 0.35 cents out of Ac. 0.51 cents situated in Sy.No 305/1 and in an extent of Ac. 303/6 and District 1.41 cents covered by in Sy.Nos. 290/2 291/1 293/5, 302/1 306/3 of Chinnamandem Village and Mandal, Annamayya (Erstwhile Y.S.R Kadapa District) nor insist him to deliver the possession thereof to the custody of respondents 5 6, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KISHORE KUMAR KATARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.22371 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 particularly respondent in interfering with possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s over the agricultural land in an extent of Ac.0.35 cents out of Ac.0.51 cents situated in Sy.No.305/1 and in an extent of Ac.1.41 cents covered by in Sy.Nos.290/2, 291/1, 293/5, 302/1, 303/6 and 306/3 of Chinnamandem Village and Mandal, Annamayya District (Erstwhile Y.S.R.Kadapa District) without following due process of law, as illegal, irregular, irrational and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4 respondent not to interfere in any manner with the civil dispute pending with petitioner possession over his aforesaid property and pass such other order or orders...” th It is the pleading of the petitioner that a person in settled 2. possession of immoveable property is entitled to continue in such possession, without being dispossessed save and except in accordance with law. In Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu,^ a three-Judge Bench 3. 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 (2004)1 see 769 4 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 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 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. owner. "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.” 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; 5. "Othenwise 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 SCC 188 ^ (2004) 13 SCC 518 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'^, 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. 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. 4aIR 1978 sc 25 Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR TON^FICER //TRUE COPY// SEC To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District at Rayachoty. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rayachoty, Annamayya District. 4. The Tahsildhar, Chinnamandem Mandal Annamayya District. 5. Shaik Saabjan, S/o. Shaik Ameer Saab, Aged 70 years, OccBusiness R/o. Bustand Road, Chinnamandem Village Mandal Annamayya District. 6. Afkhan Rehaman Khan, S/o. Abbas AN Khan, Aged 50 years, Occ Business R/o. Main Bazar, Chinnamandem Village Mandal Annamayya District. 7. One CC to SRI. KISHORE KUMAR KATARI, Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED:22/08/2025 ORDER WP NO. 22371 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS