APHC010569142025 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: 29546/2025 Between: 1. MACCHA VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O MACCHA TIRUPALU, AGED 66 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-92 SINGANAPALII VILLAGE, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 2. MADHAVARAM SUVARNA, W/O RAVI MADDIIETI, AGED 25 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-179, B.C. COLONY, SINGANAPALII VILLAGE, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 3. RACHARLA LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-154, B.C. COLONY, SINGANAPALII VILLAGE, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 4. PETIA LAKSHMIDEVI, W/O LATE VENKATESWAI IU, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 6-128, OWK VILIAGE AND MANDA, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 5. POLAMADA SRILEKHA, W/O ARAVA CHANDRAKANTH, AGED 23 YEAS, R/O H.NO. 2-180, SINGANAPALII VILIAGE, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 6. BOYA VANURAMMA, W/O PEDDA PULIAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O SINGANAPALII VILIAGE, OWK MANDAI, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 7. MUGAMANDIA RENUKA, W/O KRISHNA MOHAN, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-228, SINGANAPALII VILLAGE, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 8. PIKKIII RAJNI, W/O RACHARIA KAMBAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS, R/O 2-154, SINGANAPALII VILLAGE, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 9. PALAGIRI LAKSHMI, W/O P.HUSSAIN NAIDU, AGED 31 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-24, SINGANAPALII VILIAGE, OWK MANDAI, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 10. GOPAVARAM RAMA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O G.VENKATESHWARIU AGED 45 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-78, SINGANAPALII VIIIAGE, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 11. KONDAPURAM VENKATA NAGAVENI, W/O K.SRINIVASULU, AGED 28 YEARS, R/O H.NOP. 2-82, SINGANAPALLI VILLAGE, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 12. ARAVA PULLAMMA, W/O LATE CHINNA RAMUDU, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-170, SINGANAPALLI VILLAGE, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 13. PALAGIRI PADMAVATHI, W/O RAMAKRISHNUDU, AGED 50 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-24, SINGANAPALLI VILLAGE, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 14. VADDE SALAMMA, W/O VENKATA SWAMY, AGED 50 YEARS R/O RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 15. VADDE LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O RAMANJANEYUIU, AGED 45 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 3-768, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 16. E.RAVANAMMA, W/O BALUDU CHELAPALLE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O CHARLAPALLI VILLAGE, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 17) 17. GADDAM SAVITRI, W/O MADDILETI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 8-270, BANAGANAPAILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 18) 18. ARAVA SWATHI, W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O H.NO. 6-46, OWK VILLAGE AND MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 19. GOPAVARAM, 33 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-28, SINGANPALLI VILLAGE OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL DISTRICT, NANDYAL. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DHONE, NANDYAL DIUSTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILAR, OWK MANDAL, NANDYAL 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 topleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from their lawful possession in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac. 1.63 cents, Ac. 1.69 cents, Ac. 1.95 cents, Ac. 1.94 cents, Ac. 2.10 cents, Ac. 1.89 cents Ac. 1.89 cents, Ac. 1.95 cents, Ac. 1.10 cents, Ac. 2.44 cents, Ac. 1.69 cents, Ac. 1.69 cents, Ac. 1.10 cents, Ac. 1.80 cents Ac. 1.80 cents, ac. 2.14 cents, Ac. 1.92 cents, Ac . 1.70 cents, Ac . 1.67 cents, Ac. 1.80 cents, Ac. 1.96 cents, Ac. 2.00 cents, Ac. 2.01 cents, Ac. 2.01 cents, Ac. 1.80 cents, Ac. 1.69 cents, Ac. 1.63 cents, Ac. 1.40 cents, Ac. 2.00 cents ac. 1.30 cents and Ac. 1.01 cents in Sy.No. 497 situated at Singampalli village, Owk Mandal, Nandyal District, without issuing any notice and without foilowing the due process of Law, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps without following the due process of Law, 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 pleased to direct the respondent authorities not interfere with the peaceful possession and to dispossess or in any manner enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of their lands Sy.No.717-4 admeasuring Ac. 1.63 cents, in Sy.No.724-3 Ac. 1.69 cents, in Sy.No.722-3 Ac. 1.95 cents, in Sy.No.722-5 Ac. 1.94 cents, in Sy.No.723-2 Ac. 2.10 cents, in Sy.No.722-7 Ac. 1.89 cents in Sy.No.722-6 Ac. 1.89 cents, in Sy.No.722-2 Ac. 1.95 cents, in Sy.No.728-7 Ac. 1.10 cents, in Sy.No.719-3 Ac. 2.44 cents, in Sy.No.724-4 Ac. 1.69 cents, in Sy.No.724-5 Ac. 1.69 cents, in Sy.No.728-4 Ac. 1.10 cents, in Sy.No.721-4 Ac. 1.80 cents in Sy.No.721-4 Ac. 1.80 cents, in Sy.No.719-1 Ac. 2.14 cents, in Sy.No.722-4 Ac. 1.92 cents, in Sy.No.724-1 Ac . 1.70 cents, in Sy.No.719- 2 Ac. 1.67 cents, in Sy.No.721-5 Ac. 1.80 cents, in Sy.No.722-1 Ac. 1.96 cents, in Sy.No.726-3 Ac. 2.00 cents, in Sy.No.723-1 Ac. 2.01 cents, in Sy.No.728-1 Ac. 2.01 cents, in Sy.No.721-2 Ac. 1.80 cents, in Sy.No.724-7 Ac. 1.69 cents, in Sy.No.717-3 Ac. 1.63 cents, in Sy.No.727-1 Ac. 1.40 cents, in Sy.No.729 Ac. 2.00 cents in Sy.No.727-2 Ac. 1.30 cents and in Sy.No.716- 6 Ac. 1.01 cents respectively after subdivision in old Sy.No. 497 etc., situated at Singampalli village, Owk Mandal, Nandyal District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29546 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent authorities in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from their lawful possession in respect of the lands admeasuring Ac. 1.63 cents, Ac. 1.69 cents, Ac. 1.95 cents, Ac. 1.94 cents, Ac. 2.10 cents, Ac. 1.89 cents Ac. 1.89 cents, Ac. 1.95 cents, Ac. 1.10 cents, Ac. 2.44 cents, Ac. 1.69 cents, Ac. 1.69 cents, Ac. 1.10 cents, Ac. 1.80 cents Ac. 1.80 cents, ac. 2.14 cents, Ac. 1.92 cents, Ac . 1.70 cents, Ac . 1.67 cents, Ac. 1.80 cents, Ac. 1.96 cents, Ac. 2.00 cents, Ac. 2.01 cents, Ac. 2.01 cents, Ac. 1.80 cents, Ac. 1.69 cents, Ac. 1.63 cents, Ac. 1.40 cents, Ac. 2.00 cents ac. 1.30 cents and Ac. 1.01 cents in Sy.No. 497 situated at Singampalli village, Owk Mandal, Nandyal District, without issuing any notice and without foilowing the due process of Law, as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps without following the due process of Law, and pass…” 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. 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: 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 “..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.” 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." 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 "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 4 , 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 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’ 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. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 30.10.2025 TVN 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 62 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29546 OF 2025 Date: 30.10.2025 TVN