APHC010466642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23666 of 2025 Between: 1. VALIPI SIDDAIAH,, S/O. LATE VALIPI VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO.38/163, KRISHNAPURAM, RAYACHOTY TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. VALIPI NAGAMALLU,, S/O. LATE VALIPI VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O GAJJALAKUNTA, MADANAPALLE TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER/SUBCOLLECTOR, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MADANAPALLE MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, TALUK POLICE STATION MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. P BOJJAPPA, S/O. P. PAPANNA, AGED 65 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O SOCIETY COLONY PARK, MADANAPALLY TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. PULA VEMA NARAYANA, S/O PULA APPA SWAMY, AGED 60 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O CHAKALIMITTA, SHIVAJI NAGAR, 2 MADANAPALLY TOWN AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...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 a writ order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and their Staff with the collusion of Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 and 7 in trying to evict/dispossess the Petitioners from their agriculture land i.e., total land admeasuring Ac. 4.82 cents in Sy.No.5.99/1, 599/4, 599/5, 599/6 and Ac. 4.79 cents in Sy.No.599/2 and 599/3, situated at Kollabailu Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh, which is illegal, arbitrary and also against the Principal of Natural Justice and also Article 19, 21 and 300- A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondent No.3 to 5 and their Staff not to dispossess and disturb the peaceful possessions and enjoyment of the Petitioners from their agricultural land. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SUBRAMANYAM DARABOINA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue a writ order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 and their Staff with the collusion of Unofficial Respondent Nos.6 & 7 in trying to evict/dispossess the Petitioners from their agriculture land i.e., total land admeasuring Ac.4.82 cents in Sy.No.5.99/1, 599/4, 599/5, 599/6 and Ac.4.79 cents in Sy.No.599/2 and 599/3, situated at Kollabailu Village, Madanapalle Mandal, Annamayya District, Andhra Pradesh, which is illegal, arbitrary and also against the Principal of Natural Justice and also Article 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the Respondent No.3 to 5 and their Staff not to dispossess and disturb the peaceful possessions and enjoyment of the Petitioners from their agricultural land, and 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 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 4 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 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." 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 5 "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‟ 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 over the subject property, except by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 08.09.2025 siva 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23666 of 2025 Date: 08.09.2025 siva