APHC010485622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25318 of 2025 Between: 1. M SANKAR, S/O. LATE M. NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. D. NO. 14/1015/1, CHITRAVATHI GUTTA-14, PUTTAPARTHY TOWN AND MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL TAHSILDAR, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 5. THE COMMISSIONER, N AGARAPANCHAYAT, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL, SRI SATYA 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the respondent in trying to demolish the structures of the petitioner vide Door No. 14/1015/1, vide Rc. No. 48/2022/A existing in Sy. No. 49/1 situated at Enumalapalli Village, Puttaparthi Town and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violations of article 14, 21 and 300-A of the 2 Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of A.P Land Encroachment Act, 1905, and consequently direct the respond not to interfere in the above said subject properties. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R SUJAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 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: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly the 4th respondent in trying to demolish the structures of the petitioner vide Door No.14/1015/1, vide Rc.No.48/2022/A existing in Sy.No.49/1 situated at Enumalapalli Village, Puttaparthi Town and Mandal, Sri Satya Sai District as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice and violations of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and contrary to the provisions of A.P.Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in the above said subject properties and pass such other order or orders ….” 2. It is the pleading of the petitioner 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 to the rightful 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 4 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 petitioner 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 petitioner over the subject property, except by following due process of law before taking any coercive steps against the subject property. 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: 25.09.2025 siva 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25318 of 2025 Date: 25.09.2025 siva