■ I APHC010440702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [^0 0 FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No: 22434 OF 2025 Between: Katari Venkata Lakshmi, W/o.Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 34 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H. No. 3-83, Yerukuvanipalem Village Vallur, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Anakapalli AnakapalliA/isakhapatnam District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakaplli, AnakapalliA/isakhapatnam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal AnakapalliA/isakhapatnam 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 appropriate Writ Order or orders or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the of the respondent No.4 in trying to demolish by dispossess the petitioner from her house vide layout resolution No.20/8/A, dated 25.09.1984 Duvvada Gram Panchayat bearing Plot No. 8 for an admeasuring of 196.5 Sq. yards or 164.293 meters, (northern side), out of an extent 393.00 Sq. action approved by / X' yards, in Sy. No. 140/5 and 101/1, situated in Duvvada Village, Subbavaram Revenue Division, Gajuwaka Mandal. AnakapalliA/isakhapatnam without due process of law and without District any notice to the petitioner as highly 300 (A) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.4 not to demolish the house plot of the petitioner by dispossessing her from the subject house site without following the due process of law. illegal, arbitrary, voilative oUhe Articles 14, 21 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. 4 not to demolish the house bearing Plot an admeasuring of 196.5 Sq. yards or 164.293 meters, (northern side), out of an extent 393.00 Sq. yards, in Sy.No.140/5 and 101/1, situated in Duwada Village, No. 8 for Subbavaram Revenue Division ^ Gajuwaka Mandal, AnakapalliA/isakhapatnam District of the petitioner by dispossessing her from the subject house sites without following the due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATESWARLU GADA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: I APHC010440702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE S:*0 g. [3330] r ;4 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 22434/2025 Between: 1.KATARI VENKATA LAKSHMl, W/O.VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE R/0. H. NO. 3- 83, YERUKUVANIPALEM VILLAGE VALLUR, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND REP., BY ITS REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GUNTUR 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, DISTRICT. ANAKAPALLI COLLECTOR, DISTRICT ANAKAPALLIA/ISAKHAPATNAMDISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLIA/ISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, GAJUWAKA MANDAL VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 2.THE ANAKAPLLI ANAKAPALLI / ...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 to issue appropriate Writ Order or orders or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 4 in trying to demolish by dispossess the petitioner from her house vide layout resolution No.20/8/A, dated 25.09.1984 approved by Duvvada Gram Panchayat bearing Plot No. 8 for an admeasuring of 196.5 Sq. yards or 164.293 meters, (northern side), out of an extent 393.00 Sq. yards, in Sy. No. 140/5 and 101/1, situated in Duvvada Village, Subbavaram Gajuwaka Mandal, AnakapalliA/isakhapatnam District without due process of law and without any notice to the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary, voilative of the Art 14, 21, 300 (A) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No. 4 not to demolish the house plot of the petitioner by dispossessing revenue Division I^w anTpasr'''’'®'" 1A NOi1OF2025 stated t^thP ffH f i'°w circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court P'eased to direct the respondents No. 4 not to demolish the ^ ^ admeasuring of 196.5 Sq. yards out of an extent 393.00 Sq. yards out of an extent 393.00 Sq. yards in Duvvada Village, Subbavaram DisWct of?hr'°n- Anakapalli/ Visakhapatnam ^ ^ . petitioner by dispossessing her from the subject house sites without following the due process of law and Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.VENKATESWARLU GADA Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following; or pass THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 22434 nf 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 Order or orders or Direction more particularly one In the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 4 in trying to demolish by dispossess the petitioner from her house vide layout resolution No.20/8/A, dated 25.09.1984 approved by Duvvada Gram Panchayat bearing Plot No. 8 for an admeasuring of 196.5 Sq. yards or 164.293 meters, (northern side), out of an extent 393.00 Sq. yards, in Sy. No.140/5 and 101/1, situated in Duvvada Village, Subbavaram revenue Division, Gajuwaka Mandal, Anakapalli/Visakhapatnam District without due process of law and without any notice to the petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary, voilative of the Art 14, 21, 300 (A) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No. 4 not to demolish the house plot of the petitioner by dispossessing her from the subject house site without following the due process of law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 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, reported \n (2004)1 see 769, a three-Judge Bench of 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 4 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 Pradesh, reported in 1977(1) SCO 188, question cropped up before 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 offeree in case trespasser possession in full knowledge of the true owner. Observation made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is reproduced as under;- was in “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, reported in (2004) 13 see 518 the apex Court held that without any show notice or hearing neither demolition can take place nor a person may be dispossessed from the property, to quote relevant portion: cause "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 or 5 a 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. AIR 1978 SC 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the phrase no 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. one Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law as held by the Rame Gowda’s case that the petitioner who is continue in such she shouldn’t dispossess without being except in 7. possession accordance with law. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner, except following the due procedure as contemplated in law. No order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra 1. The Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. s» 2. The District Collector, Anakapalli, AnakapalliA/isakhapatnam District. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakaplli, AnakapalliA/isakhapatnam District. The Tahsildar, Gajuwaka Mandal Anakapalli/Visakhapatnam District. One CC to Sri Venkateswarlu Gada, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] Two CD Copies. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. ssb J k » HIGH COURT DATED;22/08/2025 > ) ORDER WP No.22434 OF 2025 ) k DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS