APHC010481012025 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. 24470/2025 BETWEEN: 1. MALLA NAGAYAMMA @ NAGA BHAVANI, W/O SATYANARAYANA @ SATYA RAO, 69 YEARS, R/O. 4-89, BRT COLONY, PISINIKADA, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P., 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT AT ANAKAPALLI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI DIVISION, ANAKAPALLI 4. THE TAHSILDAR, ANAKAPALLI MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 5. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI TOWN POLICE STATION ANAKAPALLI ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 6. DOMMESI SATYARAO, S/O. SOMULU, AGED 55YRS, R/O. KASIMKOTA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION KASIMKOTA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 7. DOMMESI NOOKALAMMA, W/O. SAGAR RAO, AGED 35 YRS, R/O. NEAR RAILWAY STATION, KASIMKOTA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering in the civil dispute relating to the property of an extent of Ac.1.47 cts in S.No 369/2 and Ac. 0.76 cts in Sy. No. 369/3, situated in Pisinikada Village, Anakapalli Mandal and District pending injunction orders in I.A. No. 128 / 2024 in O.S. No. 191/2024 on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judges Court at Anakapalli pending between the petitioner and respondents 6 and his family members as illegal, unjust and against the principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 300 A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners of said lands in any manner including the interference in civil dispute and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO 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, for the following relief/s: “….to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering in the civil dispute relating to the property of an extent of Ac.1.47 cts in S.No.369/2 &Ac.0.76 cts in Sy.No.369/3, situated in Pisinikada Village, Anakapalli Mandal & District pending injunction orders in I.A. No.128 / 2024 in O.S. No.191/2024 on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judges Court at Anakapalli pending between the petitioner and respondents 6 and his fami8ly members as illegal, unjust and against the principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 200A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners of said lands in any manner including the interference in civil dispute and pass such other and further order or orders….” 2. It is the resentment of the petitioner that despite the prohibition orders in I.A. No.128 of 2024 in O.S. No.191 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Anakapalle, against the unofficial respondents, the official respondents are trying to dispossess the 4 petitioner herein from the subject land of the Writ Petition at the behest of the unofficial respondents. 3. In this regard, learned State Counsel would submit that the authorities will follow due process of law, before initiation any action against the petitioner. 4. 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 to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law.” 5. 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:- 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 5 “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.” 6. 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." 7. 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. 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 8. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner herein without following due process of law. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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 Harin 7 107 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO W.P.No. 24470 OF 2025 Date: 22-09-2025 Harin