r ‘ n APHC010508702025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADES AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 26551 OF 2025 Between: Sunkesula Rafi, S/o. Babaiah, aged 42 years, Occ: Cultivation, R/o. Chennarajupodu Village and Post, Obulavaripalli- Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District, At Rayachoti, Erstwhile Kadapa District. to Government, Velagapudi, 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampeta, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District. 4. The Tahsildar, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District. 5. Sunkesula Peeraiah, S/o. Pedda Yerikalaiah, Cultivation, R/o. Chennarajupodu Village and Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District. 6. Bodanapu Hussain, S/o. Pedda Hussain, aged 48 aged 69 years, Occ Post, Obulavaripalli years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Chennarajupodu Village and Post, Obulavaripalli- Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa 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 Vi pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents Respondent No. 4 and his subordinates at instance of Respondent No.5 and 6, in insisting the Petitioner to vacate from his agricultural landed admeasuring Ac. 3.00 Cents covered By Sy. No. 1763/1 situated in Yerraguntia Kota (Y. Kota) Revenue Village, Obulavaripalli Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District, without following due without any acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act as illegal, irregular, irrational and it offends Articles 14 21 particularly property Mandal of process .2013, and 300-A of the constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents particularly Respondent No. 4 and his subordinates not to interfere with Petitioners peaceful possession over said land. lA NO: 1 OF 207*; 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 to direct the Respondents particularly Respondent No. 4 and his subordinates not to insist the Petitioner to vacate from his admeasuring Ac. 3.00 Cents agricultural landed property covered By Sy. No. 1763/1 situated in Yerraguntia Kota (Y, Kota) Revenue Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal of Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District, pending disposal of main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PALA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. The Court made the following: KARTHI KIRAN 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE APHC010508702025 high court of ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE justicI\^2rlada RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETlT»<^^> 26551/2025 IN THE [3330] the honourable SRI Between: AGED 42 YEARS, OCC- ’ VILLAGE AND mSTKlCt, erstwhile kadapa district. 1. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF °nT dIpARTMENT. iSy^Suor’ ^ArRAVATI, GUNTUR district, ERSTWHII^ kadapa d^str c^^^^^ 5.SUNKESULA PEERAIAH sro. PE ^^^^^rajuPODU ®® Vmd pSr obulavaripalli mandal. VILLAGE AND ' Uqtwhii F KADAPA DISTRICT. ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, ERSTWHIL aGED 48 ...RESPONDENT(S) ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, AT RAJAMPETA, Petition under Artio^ 226^oUhe^» fhlrewitK^^^ C"?"pi:ase. to issue a wnt o.de. o particularly one In the nature of WR T OF MAN ^Sb^^lniririnsttnce of^Respondent No.5 and 6, In insisting the 2 Petitioner to vacate from his agricultural landed property admeasuring Ac. 3.00 Cents covered by Sy. No.1763/1 situated in Yerraguntia Kota (Y.Kota) Revenue Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal of Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District, without following due process, without any acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, as illegal, irregular, irrational and it offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents particularly Respondent No. 4 and his subordinates not to interfere with Petitioners peaceful possession over said land and pass lA 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 Fligh Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents particularly Respondent No.4 and his subordinates not to insist the Petitioner to vacate from his agricultural landed property admeasuring Ac.3.00 Cents covered by Sy.No.1763/1 situated in Yerraguntia Kota (Y.Kota) Revenue Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal of Annamayya District, erstwhile Kadapa District, pending disposal of main writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PALA KARTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 26551 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: issue a writ order or direction more particuiariy one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondents, particularly Respondent No. 4 and his subordinates at instance of Respondent No. 5 and 6, in insisting the Petitioner to vacate from his agricultural landed property admeasuring Ac.3.00 cents covered by Sy. No. 1763/1 situated in Yerraguntia Kota (Y.Kota) Revenue Village, Obulavaripalli Mandal of Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District, without following due process, without any acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013, as illegal, irregular, irrational and it offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents particularly Respondent No. 4 and his subordinates not to interfere with Petitioners peaceful possession over said land and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case’’. It is the pleading of the petitioner that a person in settled 2. possession of immoveable property is entitled to continue in such without being dispossessed save and except in possession accordance with law. In Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu, reported \o (2004)1 see 769, a tbree-Judge Bench of 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 3. t 4 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 \/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1977(1) SCC 188, question cropped up before 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 \/s 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 others, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 518 the 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, to quote relevant portion: "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 5 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 oi Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the phrase no 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. 6. one Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law as held by the 7. Rame Gowda’s case that the petitioner who is continue in such he shouldn’t dispossess without being except in possession accordance with law. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner, except following the due procedure as contemplated in law. No order as to costs. 8. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. Sd/- T. SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District, At Rayachoti, Erstwhile Kadapa District. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajampeta, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District. 4. The Tahsildar, Obulavaripalli Mandal, Annamayya District, Erstwhile Kadapa District. 5. One CC to Sri. Pala Karthi Kiran Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies gsc ■ ■ HIGH COURT DATED:25/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 26551 OF 2025 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS