APHC010577482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29679 of 2025 Between: 1. SURASURA CHINNA RAMANAIAH, S/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.5/8, MARRIKUNTAPALLI THUMMAKUNTA VILLAGE AND POST, GALIVEEDU MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 516267. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAYACHOTI ANNAMAYYA DISTRICCT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GALIVEEDU MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA 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 an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 4 in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of land in Sy.No.977/2 admeasuring Ac.3.21 cents situated at Thummakunta Village, Galiveedu Mandal, Annamayya District, and in attempting to dispossess the petitioner and threatening to cut down the trees standing thereon without issuing any notice, without initiating any land acquisition proceedings, and without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of 2 India,and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the said property except in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MEDARA SIVA PRASAD 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 an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 to 4 in interfering with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of land in Sy.No.977/2 admeasuring Ac.3.21 cents situated at Thummakunta Village, Galiveedu Mandal, Annamayya District, and in attempting to dispossess the petitioner and threatening to cut down the trees standing thereon without issuing any notice, without initiating any land acquisition proceedings, and without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, and violative of Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution of India,and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's possession and enjoyment of the said property except in accordance with law and pass such other order or orders ….” 2. The petitioner filed pattadar passbooks to substantiate that the land in an extent of Acs.3.21 cents in Sy.No.977/2 situated at Thummakunta Village, Galiveedu Mandal, Annamayya District was recorded in the revenue records. 3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue placed written instructions dated 30.10.2025 addressed by the Tahsildar. According to the said written instructions, the land is Gayalu and it is noted that the petitioner is not having any title over the subject land. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that they are the owners of the property and it is the contention of the petitioner that they are cultivating 4 the land since long time and even assuming that the petitioner is encroacher of the property, the respondents have to follow due procedure. 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 petitioner 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 petitioner over the 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, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 30.10.2025 siva 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29679 of 2025 Date: 30.10.2025 siva