APHC010455912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) hi « MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23136 OF 2025 Between: 1. Mallu Sugunasree, W/o. M. Venkatareddy, Aged about 51 years, Occ; House Wife, R/o. 8-32, Mekalavanikalava, Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Filer Mandal, Annamayya District. 2. K. Padmavathamma, W/o. K. Venkataramana Reddy, Aged about 74 years, Occ; House Wife, Village, Filer Mandal, Annamayya District. 3. P. Vakula Devi, W/o. Obul Reddy, Aged about 74 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o Mekalavanikalava, Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Filer Mandal, Annamayya District. R/o. Mekalavanikalava, Bodumalluvaripalli 4. P. Reddy Rani, W/o. K. Suresh Kumar Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o. Mekalavanikalava, Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Filer Mandal, Annamayya District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings District. 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District at Rayachoty. 3. The Tahsildar, Filer Mandal, Annamayya District. Amaravathi, Guntur 4. The Village Revenue Officer, Bodumalluvaripalli Village Annamayya District. Filer Mandal, ...Respondent Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith pleased to issue the High Court may be a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent dispossess the petitioners from the peaceful | House Sites bearing Patta VHS Nos.2001/2013 2004/2013 issued Nos.3 and 4 in threatening to possession and enjoyment of the 2002/2013, 2003/2013 and on 05.01.2013 for an extent of Ac.0.03 Cents each situated at Plot Nos.01, 02, 03 and 04 respectively, in Sy.No. 141/2 of Mekalavanikalalva, Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Filer Mandal, Annamayya Drstrict, Erstwhile Chittoor Distriet, without issuing any notice or without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of fundamental and Constitutional guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house 141/2, of Mekalavanikalalva properties in Sy.No. Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Filer Mandal, Annamayya District. lA NO: 1 OF 207/^ Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit tiled in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents, not to interfere with the praying that in the circumstances stated petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house sites bearing Patta VHS Nos.2001/2013, 2002/2013 2003/2013 and 2004/2013 issued on 05.01.2013 for an extent of Ac.0.03 Cents 03 and 04 each situated at Plot Nos.01, 02 Sy.No. 141/2 of respectively, in Mekalavanikalalva, X Bodumalluvaripalli Village disposal of the Writ petition before this Counsel for the Petitioners: Filer Mandal Annamayya District, pending Hon’ble court. SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010455912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 050 [3330] MONDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23136/2025 Between: 1.MALLU SUGUNASREE, W/0 M. VENKATAREDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. OCC- HOUSE WIFE R/0 8-32 MEKALAVANIKALAVA, BODUMALLUVARIPALLI VILLAGE’ FILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 2.K. PADMAVATHAMMA, W/0 K. VENKATARAMANA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE MEKALAVANIKALAVA, BODUMALLUVARIPALLI VILLAGE FILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 3.P. VAKULA DEVI, W/0 OBUL REDDY. AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE, R/0 MEKALAVANIKALAVA BODUMALLUVARIPALLI VILLAGE, FILER MANDAl’ ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 4.P. REDDY RANI. W/0 K. SURESH KUMAR REDDY ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC- HOUSE WIFE MEKALAVANIKALAVA. BODUMALLUVARIPALLI ’ VILLAGE FILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT REDDY, R/0 AGED R/0 ...PETITIONER{S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT RAYACHOTY 3.THE TAHSILDAR, PILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 4.THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, BODUMALLUVARIPALLI VILLAGE, FILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR AT . ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that m the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in threatening to dispossess the petitioners rom the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the House Sites bearing Patta VHS Nos.2001/2013. 2002/2013, 2003/2013 and 2004/2013 issued on 05.01.2013 for an extent of Ac.0.03 Cents each situated at Plot Nos.01, 02, 03 and 04 respectively, in Sy.No. 141/2 of Mekalavanikalalva, Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Piler Mandal 2 -1r Annamayya District, Erstwhile Chittoor District, without issuing any notice or without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of fundamental and Constitutional guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house properties in Sy.No. 141/2, of Mekalavanikalalva, Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Filer Mandal, Annamayya District and pass 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 pleased to DIRECT the Respondents,’ not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house 2002/2013, 2003/2013 and 2004/2013 issued on 05.01.2013 for extent of Ac.0.03 Cents each situated at Plot Nos.01, 02, 03 and 04 respectively, in Sy.No.141/2 of Mekalavanikalalva, Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Filer Mandal, Annamayya District, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon’ble court, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE sites bearing Patta VHS Nos.2001/2013 an % THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23136 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 OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the House Sites bearing Patta VHS Nos.2001/2013, 2002/2013, 2003/2013 and 2004/2013 issued on 05.01.2013 for an extent of Ac.0.03 Cents each situated at Plot Nos.01, 02, 03 and 04 respectively, in Sy.No.141/2 of Mekalavanikalalva, Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Piler Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Chittoor District, without issuing any notice or without following the due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violation of principles of natural justice and violation of fundamental and Constitutional guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, not to petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house properties in Sy.No.141/2, Mekalavanikalalva, Bodumalluvaripalli Village, ’ Piler Mandal, Annamayya District and pass such other order or orders...” interfere with the of 2. It is the pleading of the petitioners that a person in settled possession of immoveable property is entitled to continue in such without being dispossessed save and except in possession accordance with law. 4 3. In Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa NaiduJ a three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing subject, observed as under: the Indian law on the ..It IS thus clear that so far as the Indian law i. 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.” In the case of Ram Ratan and others Vs. IS 4. State of Uttar Pradesh^ question cropped up before Hon’ble Supreme Court, with regard to right of private defence of trespass^^r Their Lordships held that true er against true owner, owner has no right to dispossess the trespasser by use of force, in case trespasser was in possession in full knowledge of the true Supreme Court is reproduced as under- owner. Observation made by Hon'ble the In State of W.B. and others \/s 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 law." In, H.B.Yogalaya I/s. State of U.P. and others^ the Hon'ble Apex Court held that without demolition can take place nor a property, relevant portion is extracted hereunder: are authorized by specific provisions of 5. any show cause notice or hearing, neither person may be dispossessed from the ^ (2004)1 see 769 ^{1977) 1 see 188 ^ (2004) 13 see 518 5 "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 "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 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. 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. AIR 1978 SC 25 . Sd/- N NAGAMMA ASSISTANT registrar N OFFICER //TRUE COPY// SEC To, 1. The Principal Secretary Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Revenue Department, State of Andhra 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District at Rayachoty. 3. The Tahsildar, Filer Mandal, 4. The Village Revenue Officer^ Annamayya District. 5. One CC to Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate 6. TwoCCsto GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra 7. Two CD Copies Annamayya District. Bodumalluvaripalli Village, Filer Mandal, [OPUC] Pradesh [OUT] Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:01/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 23136 OF 2025 AND^ 12 SEP 2025 )gj o Ss^^uirent SectioiiXi/ DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS