APHC010572632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29906/2025 Between: 1. MANDALA NUKA RAJU,, S/O M. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. NETTIVANI PALEM, DOSURU POST, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 2. MANDALA MUTYALA NAIDU,, S/O M. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. NETTIVANI PALEM, DOSURU POST, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 3. MANDALA GANGA RAJU,, S/O M. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. NETTIVANI PALEM, DOSURU POST, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4. MANDALA SIMHACHALAM @ CHINNA RAO,, S/O M. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. NETTIVANI PALEM, DOSURU POST, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 5. MANDALA NAGARAJU,, S/O M. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. NETTIVANI PALEM, DOSURU POST, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 6. MANDALA PAIDIYYA NAIDU,, S/O M. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. NETTIVANI PALEM, DOSURU POST, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 7. MANDALA ESWARA RAO,, S/O M. KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. NETTIVANI PALEM, DOSURU POST, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 8. RONGALI LAKSHANAMMA,, W/O. R.NOOKARAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. NETTIVANI PALEM, DOSURU POST, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 9. RAJANA LAXMI,, W/O. RAJANA SOMUNAIDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O. NETTIVANI PALEM, DOSURU POST, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (LAND ACQUISITION), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 3. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI, 2 ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, DOSURU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ATCHUTAPURAM MANDAL ANAKAPALLI 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 tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioners in their property situated in extent of Ac. 5.00 cents in Sy. No. 13/1 in Ravipalem Village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District) and also attempting to demolish the structures purportedly for construction of a residential colony for Bhaba Atomic Research Center (BARC) as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Principles of Natural Justice besides being violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the petitioners property without following due process of law and 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 may be pleased to direct the direct the Respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s property without following due process of law and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29906 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, Order or Direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioners in their property situated in extent of Ac.5.00 cents in Sy.No.13/1 in Ravipalem Village, Atchutapuram Mandal, Anakapalli District (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District) and also attempting to demolish the structures purportedly for construction of a residential colony for Bhaba Atomic Research Center (BARC) as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to Principles of Natural Justice besides being violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India and provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ property without following due process of law and pass such other order.…” 2. It is the pleading of the petitioners 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. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has furnished written instructions dated 28.10.2025, addressed by the Tahsildar, which indicates that subsequent to the issuance of notification by the land acquisition authorities, the petitioners have intentionally encroached upon the land in Sy.No.13 of Ravipalem Village, which is classified as Gedda. 4 4. In view of the written instructions, the respondents have admitted that the petitioners have encroached upon the subject land. Even the encroachers should be dispossessed by following due process. 5. 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.” 6. 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.” 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 5 7. 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." 8. 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. 9. 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). 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners’ subject property, except by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 31.10.2025 KBN