APHC010435682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22771/2025 Between: 1. SMT.MATURI ANUSHA, , D/O. VENKATESWA RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/O G.KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, DWARAKA TIRUMALA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT-534 451 (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT) 2. SMT.MATURI SAILAJA,, D/O. VENKATESWA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O G.KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE, DWARAKA TIRUMALA MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT-534 451 (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT AT ELURU, (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT) ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDYGUDEM, ELURU DISTRICT. (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT) ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DWARAKA TIRUMALA, ELURU DISTRICT. (FORMERLY WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT) ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, G.KOTHAPALLI, DWARAKA TIRUMALA MANDAL ELURU DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...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 Writ or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent nos.3 to 5 and their sub-ordinates trying to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural land situated in sy.no.290-3A and 290-3B to an total extent of Ac.4.80 in G.Kothapalli Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru District without following due 2 process of law particularly The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and also violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent nos. 3 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural land situated in sy.no.290-3A and 290-3B to an total extent of Ac.4.80 cents in G.Kothapalli Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru 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 pleased to direct the respondent nos.3 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural land situated in sy.no.290-3A & 290-3B to an total extent of Ac.4.80 in G.Kothapalli Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. BODA SATYA NAGA MANJEET Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.22771 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue Writ or order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent nos.3 to 5 and their sub-ordinates trying to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural land situated in sy.no.290-3A and 290-3B to an total extent of Ac.4.80 in G.Kothapalli Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru District, without following due process of law particularly The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and also violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent nos.3 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural land situated in sy.no.290-3A and 290-3B to an total extent of Ac.4.80 cents in G.Kothapalli Village, Dwaraka Tirumala Mandal, Eluru District and pass such other order or orders…” 2. It is the pleading of the petitioners 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. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue furnished written instructions dated 22.08.2025 (forms part of record), addressed by the Tahsildar Dwaraka Tirumala to the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, wherein it transpires that the respondents are not intended to dispossess the petitioners. 4 4. 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 the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law.” 5. 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.” 6. 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 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 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." 7. In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India4, 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. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law, as held in Rame Gowda’s case (supra-1). 9. 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. 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 01.09.2025 KBN