I 4 , y APHC010454922025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 0;i!S TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23128 OF 2025 Between: K A Pumshotham Reddy, S/o. Late K. Anjineyulu Reddy. Aged about 54 years, Occ. Cultivation, Post, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District. R/o. D.No.3-33, Appinapalle Village and ...Petitioner AND 1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, A.P. Secretariat at Velagapudi, Revenue Department, Amaravati Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Chittor, Chittoor Distrct. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palamaneru, Chittoor District. 4. The Tahsildar, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District. 5. A Rama Krishna, S/o.A.Lakshmana, Aged about 49 years,R/o. Appinapalle Village and Post, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District. 6. K Marakonda Reddy, S/o.K.Chinnayya Reddy, years,R/o. Appinapalle Village and Post Chittoor District. Aged about 69 Pedda Panjani Mandal, ...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 an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in trying to mutate the name of the Respondent.no.5 to 6 in revenue record in respect of the land an extent of Ac.0.63 cents in Sy.No.92/3 of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District and an extent of Ac.2-12cents in Sy. No. 93/2 of of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District in total an extent of Ac.2-75cents of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District without issuing notice and without following due procedure of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principles justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 5 (3) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and Rules 15 and 16 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Rules, 1989 and violative of Art. 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent to follow the procedure contemplated in A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act and Rules made there under while mutating the names of third parties in respect of my 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 5th and 6th Respondent not to create third party rights in respect of the land an extent of Ac.0.63 cents in Sy.No.92/3 of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District and an extent of Ac.2-12cents in Sy. No. 93/2 of of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District in total an extent of Ac.2-75cents of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District. of natural 4th Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI GALLA SUDARSANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 6: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following order: <V APHC010454922025 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: 23128/2025 Between; 1.K A PURUSHOTHAM REDDY, S/0. LATE K. ANJINEYULU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO.3-33, APPINAPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, PEDDA PANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI,GUNTURDISTRICT 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRCT. 3.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAMANERU, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, PEDDA PANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5.A RAMA KRISHNA, S/O.A.LAKSHMANA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,R/O. APPINAPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, PEDDA PANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6.K MARAKONDA REDDY, S/O.K.CHINNAYYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,R/O. APPINAPALLE VILLAGE AND POST, PEDDA PANJANI MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 declaring the action of the 4th Respondent in trying to mutate the name of the Respondent.no.5 to 6 in revenue record in respect of the land an extent of Ac.0.63 cents in Sy.No.92/3 of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District and an extent of Ac.2-12cents in Sy. No. 93/2 2 of of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District in total an extent of Ac.2-75cents of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District without issuing notice and without following due procedure of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of principtes of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under Section 5 (3) of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and Rules 15 and 16 of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Rules, 1989 and violative of Art. 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th Respondent to follow the procedure contemplated in A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act and Rules made thereunder while mutating the names of third parties in respect of my 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 High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the 5th and 6th Respondent^not to create third party rights in respect of the land an extent of Ac.0.63 cents in Sy.No.92/3 of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District and an extent of Ac.2-12cents in Sy. No. 93/2 of of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District in total an extent of Ac.2-75cents of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GALLA SUDARSANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: r JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23128 of 2025 THE HONOURABLE SRI ORDER; undor ArticlG 226 of th6 Writ Petition is filed The present of India seeking the following relief: Constitution order, writ or direction more particularly in the the action of the 4th Respondent in 5 and 6 in revenue record "...pleased to issue nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring an trying to mutate the name of the Respondent nos. respeo, of the tend en extent oMc ,0.63 cenie in Sy. No. 92/3 ofAppinapatt, extent of Ac.2.12 in Village, Pedda Panjani Mandat, Chittoor District and an cents in Sy No, 93/2 of Appinapalli Village, Pedda Pan,an, Mandat, Chitloor 75 cents of Appinapalli Village, Pedda District in total an extent of Ac.2. Panjani Mandat, Chittoor District without issuing notice and without following procedure of law as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, viotatiire of contrary to the procedure prescribed under Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and due principles of natural justice and Section 5 (3) of A.P Rights in Land and in Land and Pattadar Passbook Rules, 1989 Rules 15 and 16 of A.P Rights in _ of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and and violative follow the procedure the 4th Respondent to Land and Pattadar Passbook Act and Rules consequently direct contemplated in A.P Rights in of third parties in respect of my made thereunder while mutating the names land and pass such other order or orders.... in settled pleading of the petitioner that a person is entitled to continue in such and except in accordance 2. It is the possession of immoveable property possession without being dispossessed save with law. 4 In 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: 3. “..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 \/s. State of Uttar Pradesh^, question cropped up before Hon’ble Supreme Court, with regard to right of private defence of trespasser against true 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:- 4. owner. "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 are authorized by specific provisions of law. ” ■ (2004)1 see 769 2 (1977) 1 see 188 5 In, H.B.Yogalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others^, the Hon’ble 5. 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." "It is well settled that the law reguires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies under, the law." In the celebrated case of Mane/fa Ganc/h/vs. Union of India'^, 6. 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. In Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & 1. Ors.,® it was held that the eviction from pavements and slums will lead to deprivation of their livelihood and consequently to the deprivation of the right to life. It was also held that pavement dwellers and slum dwellers are using pavements and other public properties for an ^ (2004) 13 see 518 ^ AIR 1978 Se 25 5 1985 (3) see 545 6 unauthorised purpose; that opportunity of hearing cannot be denied to them on ground that they are trespassers; trespass is a tort and that but, even the law of torts requires that though a trespasser may be evicted forcibly, the force used must be no greater than what is reasonable and appropriate to the occasion and, what is even more important, the trespasser should be asked and given a reasonable opportunity to depart before force is used to expel. 8. 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). 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 9. process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEF^TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat at Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District 2. The District Collector, Chittor, Chittoor Distrct. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palamaneru, Chittoor District 4. The Tahsildar, Pedda Panjani Mandal, Chittoor District. V. One CC to Sri. Galla Sudarsana Rao Advocate [OPUC Two CCs to GP For Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh fOUTl T9. Two CD Copies. AL /Q HIGH COURT DATED:02/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 23128 OF 2025 g( 12 SEP 2025 Sectjopx^'y^ I Co' DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS