APHC010465402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25633/2025 Between: 1. YASMEEN SHAIK, W/O KAMAL BASHA, AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O RAHAMATHPUR, HINDUPUR URBAN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 2. S NOORJAHAN, W/O NOOR MOHAMMED, AGE ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O RAHAMATHPUR. HINDUPUR URBAN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 3. SHAIK SHAFIA, W/O S ASLAM, AGE ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC.COOLIE , R/O RAHAMATHPUR. HINDUPUR URBAN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. SADIYABANU, W/O SIDDIQ SHARIFF, AGE ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O RAHAMATHPUR. HINDUPUR URBAN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 5. S SHABREEN, W/O KALEEM BASHA, AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC.COOLIE, R/O RAHAMATHPUR. HINDUPUR URBAN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 6. HASHINAA BI, W/O S NAYAJULLA, AGE ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE R/O RAHAMATHPUR. HINDUPUR URBAN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 7. GULABSHA SHAIK, W/O ALLABAKASH, AGE ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O RAHAMATHPUR. HINDUPUR URBAN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 8. M. ALEKHYA, W/O G. MAHENDRA, AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O RAHAMATHPUR, HINDUPUR URBAN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT 9. SHABANA, W/O ISMAIL ZABIULLA, AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O RAHAMATHPUR. HINDUPUR URBAN, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUTTAPARTHI, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PENUKONDA, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, HINDUPUR URBAN MANDAL SRI SATHYA 2 SAI 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 the respondents No.4 failed to regularize the petitioners house-site applications dated. 06-03-2024 and other dates having in occupation for an extent of 0.02 Cents each petitioner in Sy. NO.404- 1A in Rahamathpur, Flindupur Urban, Sri Sathya Sai District as arbitrary, illegal against Art. 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their houses situated in Sy. No.400-1A in Rahamathpur, Hindupur Urban, Sri Sathya Sai District and to 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 respondent No.4 not to proceed the demolition of the petitioners huts situated in Sy No. 404-1A. Rahamathpur, Hindupur Urban, Sri Sathya Sai District pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. KURAKULA CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25633 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 the respondents No.4 failed to regularize the petitioners house-site applications dated.06-03-2024 and other dates having in occupation for an extent of 0.02 Cents each petitioner in Sy.No.404-1A in Rahamathpur, Hindupur Urban, Sri Sathya Sai District, as arbitrary, illegal against Art. 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their houses situated in Sy.No.404-1A in Rahamathpur, Hindupur Urban, Sri Sathya Sai District and to 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 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 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 4 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." "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 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 5 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: 22.09.2025 KBN