APHC010440922025 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: 23086/2025 Between: 1. M EERANNA, S/O. MADNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC- CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.3-10, HALUKURU VILLAGE, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT 2. M. MADHU YADAV, S/O. M.EERANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC-CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.3-10, HALUKURU VILLAGE, AMARAPURAM MANDAL SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (ASSIGNMENT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. AT PUTTAPARTHY, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, AMARAPURAM MANDAL, AMARAPURAM, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ERSTWHILE ANANTAPUR 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 order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of the respondents in seeking dispossession of the petitioners from their property an extent of Ac.1.09 cents in Sy.No.465-1A (belongs to petitioner) and an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.149 bounded by North House of Suseelamma, South House of Muddiramma, East House of Sivamma, West Patta Land of Muddanna (belongs to 2 petitioner) situated at Halkuru Village Amalapuram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without following any procedure under law and without issuing any notice or any proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and against to principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2 respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the above said property without following due process of law 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 respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their property an extent of Ac.1.09 cents in Sy.No.465-1A (belongs to 1 petitioner) and an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.149 bounded by North House of Suseelamma, South House of Muddiramma, East House of Sivamma, West Patta Land of Muddanna (belongs to 2 petitioner) situated at Halkuru Village Amalapuram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District, pending disposal of writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23086 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, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of the respondents in seeking dispossession of the petitioners from their property an extent of Ac.1.09 cents in Sy.No.465-1A (belongs to 1st petitioner) and an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.149 bounded by North: House of Suseelamma, South: House of Muddiramma, East: House of Sivamma, West: Patta Land of Muddanna (belongs to 2nd petitioner) situated at Halkuru Village, Amalapuram Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District Erstwhile Anantapur District without following any procedure under law and without issuing any notice or any proceedings as illegal, arbitrary and against to principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the above said property without following due process of law 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. 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 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 4 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.” 4. 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.” 5. 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 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." 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (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." 6. 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. 7. 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). 8. 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. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 01.09.2025 KBN 4 AIR 1978 SC 25