APHC010023122025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) - WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 1295 OF 2025 Between: K. Prakash Babu, S/o. Late Mallapu Narasayya, Aged about 47 years, R/o. D.No.3-28, Pandalaparru Village and Nidadavole Mandal, East Godavari District (Erstwhile West Godavari District) i ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram. 3. The Tahsildar, Nidadavole Mandal, East Godavari District (Erstwhile West Godavari District) 4. The Circle Inspector of Police, Nidadavole Circle, Nidadavole Mandal, East Godavari District (Erstwhile West Godavari District) 5. The Sub Inspector of Police, Samisragudem Police Station, Nidadavole Mandal, East Godavari District (Erstwhile West Godavari District) 6. Kalabathula Dora Babu, S/o. Ramanayya, Aged about 34 years, R/o. East Pandalaparru Village and Nidadavole Mandal, Godavari District (Erstwhile West Godavari District) 7. Kalabathula Surya Rao, S/o. Babu Rao, Aged about 45 years, R/o. D.No.3-12, Nidadavole Mandal, East Godavari District, Pandalaparru Village (Erstwhile West Godavari District) 8. Kalabathula Suresh, S/o. Babu Rao, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Pandalaparru Village, Nidadavole Mandal, East Godavari District, (Erstwhile West Godavari District) ...Respondents 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in taking steps for dispossession of the Petitioner with respect to Lutheran Church situated in the land admeasuring 0.05 cents in R.S.No.28/1 in Pandalaparru Village, Nidadavole Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, violative of Articles 14,19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, unreasonable and consequently direct the Respondents to not to dispossess the Petitioner and not to interfere with the Management of the Lutheran Church in the subject land. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to dispossess the Petitioner with respect to Lutheran Church situated in the land admeasuring 0.05 cents in R.S.No.28/1 in Pandalaparru Village, Nidadavole Mandal, East Godavari District and to carry out prayers in the Church. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs. SODUM ANVESHA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 :GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents Nos.4 & 5 : GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 to 8 : NONE APPEARED The Court made the following order; THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.1295 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “...pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction mostly one which is in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in taking steps for dispossession of the Petitioner with respect to Lutheran Church situated in the land admeasuring 0.05 cents in R.S.No.28/1 in Pandalaparru Village, Nidadavole Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, unreasonable and consequently direct the Respondents to not to dispossess the Petitioner and not to interfere with the Management of the Lutheran Church in the subject land 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. In Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu,^ a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing the Indian law on the subject, observed as under: 3. 1 (2004)1 see 769 2 “Jt 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 .7h possession if he can do so peacefully and II® unreasonable force. If the trespasLr is possession of the property belonging to the ?S>urLtolaw.- In the case of Ram Ratan and Pradesh^, question cropped 4. others Vs. State of Uttar up before Hon’ble Supreme Court, with regard to right of private defence of trespasser Their Lordships held that true against true owner, owner has no right to dispossess the trespasser by use of force, in case trespasser was in possession in full knowledge of the true Supreme Court is reproduced as under owner. Observation made by Hon'ble the •In State of W.B. and others Vs VIshnunarayan and Associates (P) Ltd. and another, reported in (2002) 4 SCO 134. held that State and its executive officers cannot interfere with the where their actions In, H.B.Yogalaya Vs. State of U.P. rights of others except authorized by specific provisions of law.” are 5. and others^, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that without any show cause notice demolition can take place or hearing, neither nor a person may be dispossessed from the property, relevant portion is extracted hereunder; Vlheiwise also principles of natural justice demand c&ase ■ notice and hearing be that a show- given before demolishing or ^(1977) 1 see 188 ^ (2004) 13 see 518 3 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." In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of india^, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the phrase no one shall be deprived of one’s life and liberty except procedure established by law employed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The principles of natural justice demands that the persons who are affected should be heard. 6. as 7. In Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.,^ it was held that the eviction from pavements and slums will lead to deprivation of their livelihood and consequently to the deprivation of the right to life. It was also held that pavement dwellers and slum dwellers are using pavements and other public properties for an unauthorised purpose; that opportunity of hearing cannot be denied to them ground that they are trespassers; trespass is a tort and that but, even the law of torts requires that though a trespasser may be evicted forcibly, the force used must be no greater than what is reasonable and appropriate to the occasion and, what is even more important, the on ^ AIR 1978 SC 25 ^ 1985 (3) see 545 4 trespasser should be asked and given a reasonable opportunity to depart before force is used to expel. 8. 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). 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. Sd/.B.PRASADARAO assistant r //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram. 3. The Tahsildar, Nidadavole Mandal East Godavari District (Erstwhile West Godavari District) 4. The Circle Inspector of Police, Nidadavole East Godavari District (Erstwhile West Godavari 5. The Sub Inspector of Police, Samisragudem Mandal, East Godavari District (Erstwhile West Godavari 6. One CC to Mrs. Sodum Anvesha Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 8. Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 9. Two CD Copies Circle, Nidadavole Mandal, District) Police Station, Nidadavole District) /-N.. .p»? HIGH COURT DATED: 13/08/2025 i 02 SEP 2025 S Current iiecuon , ^ ORDER WP NO. 1295 OF 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W P WITHOUT COSTS r.nr