APHC010501832025 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: 25779/2025 Between: 1. KOTA UMA KUMAR SHANKAR, S/O KOTA VENKATA RAMANA AG57 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, H. NO6-103/3, TRIVENI NURSING REVENUE, PENDURTHI, VISAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-53117 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (REGISTRATION & STAMPS) A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 522 238. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM HAVING OFFICE AT DISTRICT COLLECTORATE MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT HAVING OFFICE AT DISTRICT COLLECTORATE MAHARANIPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PENDURTHI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents particularly 3rd and 4th respondents in interfering with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the property in an extent of 98 square yards or Ac 0.2 cents in Sy.No.113, Sub-Divisional No.113/53071 Chinnimusinivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without following due process of law and without issuing prior notice as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires of their powers and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere into an extent of 98 Sq. Yds or Ac.0.2cents in Sy.No.113, Sub-Divisional No.113/53071 of 2 Chinnimusinivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in circumstances of the case. 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KARUMANCHI DHEERAJ REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR REGISTRATION AND STAMPS The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 25779 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents particularly 3rd and 4th respondents in interfering with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the property in an extent of 98 square yards or Ac 0.2 cents in Sy.No.113, Sub-Divisional No.113/53071 Chinnimusinivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, without following due process of law and without issuing prior notice as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires of their powers and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere into an extent of 98 Sq. Yds or Ac.0.2cents in Sy.No.113, Sub-Divisional No.113/53071 of Chinnimusinivada Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”. 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, reported in (2004)1 SCC 769, a three-Judge Bench of 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 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 Pradesh, reported in 1977(1) SCC 188, question cropped up before 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 others, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 518 the 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, to quote relevant portion: "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." 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 India, AIR 1978 SC 25, 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 by the Rame Gowda’s case that the petitioner who is continue in such possession, he shouldn’t dispossess without being except in accordance with law. 8. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner, except following the due procedure as contemplated in law. No order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 22.09.2025 SPP 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO W.P.No. 25779 OF 2025 Date: 22.09.2025 SPP