APHC010558622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28801 of 2025 Between: 1. DOKI BHAVANI, W/O DOKI SURESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 3-130, ROTARY NAGAR, TEKKALI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT,-ANDHRA PRADESH 2. DOKI SURESH,, S/O DOKI KAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 3-130, ROTARY NAGAR-1, TEKKALI VILLAGES MANDAL SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT,-ANDHRA PRADES ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT 4. THE TAHSILDAR/MRO, TEKKALI MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER/VRO, AKKAVARAM VILLAGE TEKKALI MANDAL SRIKAKULAM 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 direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the highhanded action of the Respondent Authorities Especially Respondents Nos.3 to 5 in interfering and making efforts to dispossess the petitioners from their 2 properties, situated in an extent of Ac.. 0.05 Cents, i.e, 242 sq yards and extent of 1090.50 Sq Yards situated in survey numbers, i.e 251-19A and 251-11A of Syamasundarapuram Village, Akkavaram Panchayati, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam district, without following the due process of law and pending Appeal Suit vide A.S.No.7 of 2025 and A.S.No.8 of 2025 on the file of Honourable Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tekkali as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violative of principles of natural justice as well as Article 14, Article 21, Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently direct the Respondent no 3 to 5 to not to dispossess and interfere with the petitioners Subject properties, situated in an extent of Ac.0.05 Cents, i.e, 242 sq yards and extent of 1090.50 Sq Yards situated in survey numbers, i.e 251-19A and 251-11A of Syamasundarapuram Village, Akkavaram Panchayati, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam district, without following the due process of law and pending Appeal Suit vide A.S.No.7 of 2025 and A.S.No.8 of 2025 on the file of Honourable Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tekkali. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MOHAMMAD NAYAB RASOOL 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 direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the highhanded action of the Respondent Authorities Especially Respondents Nos.3 to 5 in interfering and making efforts to dispossess the petitioners from their properties, situated in an extent of Ac.. 0.05 Cents, i.e., 242 sq yards and extent of 1090.50 Sq Yards situated in survey numbers, i.e., 251-19A and 251-11A of Syamasundarapuram Village, Akkavaram Panchayati, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam district, without following the due process of law and pending Appeal Suit vide A.S.No.7 of 2025 and A.S.No.8 of 2025 on the file of Honourable Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tekkali as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and violative of principles of natural justice as well as Article 14, Article 21, Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. Consequently direct the Respondent nos.3 to 5 to not to dispossess and interfere with the petitioners Subject properties, situated in an extent of Ac.0.05 Cents, i.e., 242 sq yards and extent of 1090.50 Sq Yards situated in survey numbers, i.e., 251-19A and 251-11A of Syamasundarapuram Village, Akkavaram Panchayati, Tekkali Mandal, Srikakulam district, without following the due process of law and pending Appeal Suit vide A.S.No.7 of 2025 and A.S.No.8 of 2025 on the file of Honourable Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tekkali and pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the orders of the High Court dated 21.09.2021 in W.P.No.20641 of 2021, the 1st petitioner and her, property vendors, who have sold the land, have filed O.S.No.50 of 2018 and O.S.No.52 of 2018 on the file of the Court of 4 Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tekkali for grant of permanent injunction against respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 and the same was dismissed vide an order dated 25.07.2025 and before purchasing the property by the 2nd petitioner, the said suit was filed and challenging the same, the Appeal Suit was filed vide A.S.No.7 of 2025 and A.S.No.8 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tekkali and the same is pending adjudication and the respondent Nos.3 to 5 are making efforts to dispossess without giving any notice and without following due process and without there being any survey conducted is sheer violation of orders passed in W.P.No.20641 of 2021 dated 21.09.2021 and pending Appeal Suits vide A.S.No.7 of 2025 and A.S.No.8 of 2025 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tekkali and on 06th October, first adjournment was done and notice ordered and posted the matter on 29.10.2025. 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 owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law.” 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 5 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." 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 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 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 over the subject property, except by following due process of law. 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: 17.10.2025 siva 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28801 of 2025 Date: 17.10.2025 siva