APHC010515792025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI i (Special Original Jurisdiction) | FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 26917 OF 2025 Between: Kuppili Varahala Rao Reddy @ Varahala Reddy, S/o. Late Venkata Ramana, Male, Hindu, aged 60 years, R/o. Kumarapuram, Payakaraopet Mandal, Anakapalli District. Presently Residing Of D.No.24-83-21, Sanatnagar, Old Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam - 530026. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. Kumarapuram Grama Panchayat, Rep by its Panchayat Secretary, Payakaraopet Mandal, Anakapalli District (ErstwhileVisakhapatnam District) 3. The District Collector, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District (Ernst Anakapalli District), trict) 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Payakaraopet Mandal, Anakapalli District (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam Dis 5. The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office, Payakaraopet Mandal, Anakapalli District (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District). 6. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its the Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ^ 7. The Village Revenue Officer, Payakaraopet Mandal, Anakapalli District (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District) ...Respondents 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the Petition under Article circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature declaring the impugned action of the 2nd Respondent extent of Ac.4.50 cents of Writ of Mandamus in seeking to acquire the Petitioners land to an situated allegedly treating the land as GramaKantam, Kumarapuram Village, Anakapalli District, and the consequential actions of dispossess the Petitioner and Payakaraopet Mandal, Respondents 4, 5 and 7 in attempting to construct thereon, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of principles of natural justice, and of the Constitution of India, violative contrary to law and the 2nd Respondent and the consequentially set aside the impugned proceedings of consequential coercive actions of Respondents Direct the Respondents not to interfere with the 4, 5 and 7 and further peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners land admeasuring Kumarapuram Village, Payakaraopet Mandal, Ac.4.50 cents situated in Anakapalli District, except in accordance with due process of law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to in the affidavit filed in direct the 2"'^ Respondent not to interfere with or acquire the Petitioners Ac.4.50 cents situated in land admeasuring Payakaraopet Mandal, Anakapalli District, pending ancestral agricultural Kumarapuram Village disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M V RAJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 3 to 5, 7: GP FOR REVENUE ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.6: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI YARRAGUNTLA KOTESWARA RAO, Standing Counsel The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.26917 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 the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 2'^'^ Respondent in seeking to acquire the Petitioner’s land to an extent of Ac.4.50 cents situated allegedly treating the land as Grama Kantam, Kumarapuram Village, Payakaraopet Mandal, Anakapalli District, and the consequential actions of Respondents 4, 5 & 7 in attempting to dispossess the Petitioner and construct thereon, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 & 300-A of the Constitution of India, violative of principles of natural justice, and contrary to law and consequentially set aside the impugned proceedings of the 2"'^ Respondent and the consequential coercive actions of Respondents 4, 5 & 7 and further Direct the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.4.50 cents situated in Kumarapuram Village, Payakaraopet Mandal, Anakapalli District, except in accordance with due process of law and to pass such other order or orders ” 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 2. 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. “..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 Pradesh^, 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 t/s Vishnunarayan and Associates (P) Ltd. and another, reported in (2002) 4 SCO 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.” In, H.B.Yogalaya Us. State of U.P. and others^, the Hon’ble 5. Apex Court held that without any show cause notice or hearing, neither ' (2004)1 see 769 Hi977) 1 see 188 ^ (2004) 13 see 518 # 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 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 notice and hearing be given before demolishing or 6. as heard. In Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.,^ it 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 on 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 7. was " AIR 1978 SC 25 ^ 1985 (3) see 545 4 forcibly, the force used must be no greater than what is reasonable and appropriate to the occasion and, what is even more important, the trespasser should be asked and given a reasonable opportunity to depart before force is used to expel. 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). 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. 9. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTlOKrOFFlCER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Panchayat Secretary, Kumarapuram Grama Panchayat, Payakaraopet Mandal, Anakapalli District (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District) 3. The District Collector, Anakapalli, Anakapalli District (Ernst Anakapalli District), trict) 4. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Payakaraopet Mandal, District (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam Dis Anakapalli Payakaraopet Mandal, Anakapalli 5. The Tahsildar, Tahsildar Office District (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District). 6. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. Village Revenue Officer, Payakaraopet Mandal, Anakapalli District 7. The (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam District) 8. One CC to SRI M V RAJA RAAM Advocate [OPUC] GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV High Court of 9. Two CCs to Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 10.Two CCs to 11.Two CD Copies GP FOR REVENUE High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] gsg V HIGH COURT DATED:26/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 26917 OF 2025 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS