APHC010486552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25532/2025 Between: 1. C VENKATESH, S/O.CHINNA MUNNEPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.3-20, CHINNURU VILLAGE, SANTHIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, SANTHIPURAM MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RALLABUDUGURU POLICE STATION, SANTHIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6. SMT PAPAMMA, W/O.LATE TIMA RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS CHINNURU VILLAGE, PEDDURU POST SANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 7. SMT MUNIRATANAMMA, W/O. SHIVAYA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS CHINNURU VILLAGE, PEDDURU POST SANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 8. SMT AMARAVATHI, W/O. VENKATARAO AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS CHINNURU VILLAGE, PEDDURU POST SANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 9. MS KAVITA, D/O. LATE TIMA RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS CHINNURU VILLAGE, PEDDURU POST SANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 10. MS SHIVALATHA, D/O. LATE TIMA RAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS CHINNURU VILLAGE, PEDDURU POST SANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 11. SRI PRAKASH, S/O. SHIVAYA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS CHINNURU VILLAGE, PEDDURU POST SANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 12. SRI VENKATA RAO, S/O. HANUMANTHA RAO AGED 2 ABOUT 60 YEARS CHINNURU VILLAGE, PEDDURU POST SANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 13. SRI VARUN, S/O. N. VENKATA RAO AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS CHINNURU VILLAGE, PEDDURU POST SANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 14. SRI SHIVAYYA, S/O. LATE PULLAPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS CHINNURU VILLAGE, PEDDURU POST SANTIPURAM MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 Wirt, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of his private land to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.137/5B located in Muddanepalli Village, Shantipuram Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of his private land to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.137/5B located in Muddanepalli Village, Shantipuram Mandal, Chittoor District except in accordance with law as pass such 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 interdict the 4th and 5th Respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of his land to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.137/5B located in Muddanepalli Village, Shantipuram Mandal, Chittoor District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M/S INDUS LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25532 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Wirt, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in interfering with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of his private land to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.137/5B located in Muddanepalli Village, Shantipuram Mandal, Chittoor District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of his private land to an extent of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.137/5B located in Muddanepalli Village, Shantipuram Mandal, Chittoor District, except in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders…” 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.4 and 5 at the behest of respondent Nos.6 to 14 are interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment of the land admeasuring of Ac.0.30 cents in Sy.No.137/5B in Muddanepalli Village, Shantipuram Mandal, Chittoor District, without following the procedure established under law. To establish title over the subject property, petitioner filed copies of 1B Adangal, Pattadar Passbook and Title Deeds. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue furnished proceedings dated 12.09.2025, addressed by the Tahsildar, Santhipuram, which forms part of the record. The said instructions categorically indicates that the said land is classified as patta land, as 4 per fair adangal of Muddanapalli Village of Santhipuram Mandal and Government has not interfered with the petitioner’s private land in anyway. However, there are some personal disputes between petitioner and respondent Nos.6 to 14. 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:- “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 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 5 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. 8. 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). 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s 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: 19.09.2025 KBN