APHC010458342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER \o, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR WRIT PETITION NQ: 23207 OF 7()7Fi SMS cc RAO Between: Smt. Tippana Varamma, W/o. Lakshumaih R/o. Mandaram Harijanawada Village, Rajampeta District, Erstwhile Kadapa District. aged 50 years, Occ: Cultivation, Mandal, Annamayya ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District, Kadapa District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampeta Erstwhile Kadapa District. 4. The Tahsildar, Rajampeta Mandal Kadapa District. 5. The Mandal Surveyor, Rajampeta Mandal Erstwhile Kadapa District. Amaravati, At Rayachoti, Erstwhile Annamayya District, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Annamayya District, ...RESPONDENTS of India praying that in the the High Court may be Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ^ circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith. pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 4 and his subordinates in insisting the Petitioner to vacate from her agricultural landed property admeasuring Ac. 5.00 Cents covered by Sy. No. 1728/1 situated in Poli Village, Rajampeta Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District without issuing advance notice or following due process, as illegal, irregular, irrational and amount to non discharge of legal obligation conferred them and it offends Articles 14,21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents particularly Respondent No. 4 and his subordinates to continue the petitioner in the said land. 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 particularly Respondent No. 4 and his subordinates not to insist the Petitioner to vacate from her agricultural landed property admeasuring Ac. 5.00 Cents covered by Sy. No. 1728/1 situated in Poli Village, Rajampeta Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District, pending disposal of main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PALA KARTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: 1%^ APHC010458342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23207/2025 Between: 1.TIPPANA VARAMMA, W/0. LAKSHUMAIH, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/0. MANDARAM HARIJANAWADA VILLAGE, RAJAMPETA- MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE 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 RAYACHOTI, ERSTWHILE KADAPA DISTRICT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, , RAJAMPETA, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KADAPA DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, RAJAMPETA MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KADAPA DISTRICT. 5.THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, , RAJAMPETA MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KADAPA 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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 4 and his subordinates in insisting the Petitioner to vacate from her agricultural landed property admeasuring Ac. 5.00 Cents covered by Sy. No. 1728/1 situated in Poli Village, Rajampeta Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District without issuing advance notice or following due process, as illegal, irregular, irrational and amount to non discharge of legal obligation conferred them and it offends Articles 14,21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents particularly Respondent No. 4 and his subordinates to continue the petitioner in the said land 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 2 High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents particularly Respondent No. 4 and his subordinates not to insist the Petitioner to vacate from her agricultural landed property admeasuring Ac. 5.00 Cents covered by Sy. No. 1728/1 situated in Poli Village, Erstwhile Kadapa District, Rajampeta Mandal, Annamayya District pending disposal of main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.PALA KARTHl KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23207 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 Respondents, particularly Respondent No.4 and his subordinates in insisting the Petitioner to vacate from her agricultural landed property admeasuring Ac.5.00 Cents covered by Sy. No. 1728/1 situated in Poli Village, Rajampeta Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District, without issuing advance notice or following due process, as illegal, irregular, irrational and amount to non discharge of legal obligation conferred them and it offends Articles 14. 21 and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents particularly Respondent No.4 and his subordinates to continue the petitioner in the said land and pass such other order or orders...” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 and his subordinates insisting the petitioner to vacate from the agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.1728/1 in Poli Village, Rajampeta Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District, without adhering to the procedure established under law. Learned State counsel would submit that respondents will follow 3. due procedure of law before evicting the petitioner from the subject property. 4. , Heard Sri Karthi Kiran Pala, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. 4 5. !n Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu,^ 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.” 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 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;- 6. “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. 1. 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 ' (2004)1 see 769 H1977) 1 see 188 .. .. JJ2004) 13 see 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." In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India'* 8. 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. 9. 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). 10. 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. " AIR 1978 SC 25 6 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any. shall stand closed. Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, r Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati, 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District Kadapa District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Erstwhile Kadapa District. 4. The Tahsildar, Rajampeta Mandal, Kadapa District. Revenue Department, State of Guntur District. At Rayachoti, Erstwhile Officer, Rajampeta, Annamayya District Annamayya District, Erstwhile 5. The Mandal Surveyor, Rajampeta Erstwhile Kadapa District. 6. One CC to Sri Pala Karthi Kiran Mandal, Annamayya District, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra 8. Two CD Copies. Pradesh [OUT] ssb HIGH COURT DATED:02/09/2025 ORDER WP No. 23207 OF 2025 2 SEP 2025 jl ^^vQjirrent DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS