APHC010469192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24696/2025 Between: 1. P LATEEF KUMAR, S/O. P. KARUNAKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. 1-59, MALLAMGURITA TIURPATHI RURAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 2. MUCHELL HARSHITHA,, W/O. P. LATEEF KUMAR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O. 1-59, MALLAMGUNTA, TIURPATHI RURAL, TIRUPATHI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATHI, TIURPATHI DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATHI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATHI 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 appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No. 3 in directing the petitioners to evict from the house and vacant site in S.No.285/3 of Chiguruvada Uttarapu Kandriga Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District without issuing notice and following the procedure as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the directing the 3rd respondent not to evict the petitioners from the said property and 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 3rd respondent not to evict the petitioners from the house and vacant site in S.No.285/3 of 2 Chiguruvada Uttarapu Kandriga Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. MAHADEVA KANTHRIGALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.24696 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in directing the petitioners to evict from the house and vacant site in S.No.285/3 of Chiguruvada Uttarapu Kandriga Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District without issuing notice and following the procedure as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the directing the 3rd respondent not to evict the petitioners from the said property 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 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 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 4 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." "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." 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 5 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’ 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: 16.09.2025 KBN 4 AIR 1978 SC 25