APHC010442392025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 23095/2025 Between: 1. M VENKATRAMANA REDDY, S/O M.REDDEPPA REDDY, AGE 82 YEARS, CULTIVATION, D.NO.4-72-A, TIRUPATHI ROAD, PATHAKOTAPALLE, CHINTAPARTHI POST, VAYALPAD MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2. M.RAMADEVI73, W/O LATE M.SIDDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O D.NO.4-22, PATHAKOTAPALLE, CHINTAPARTHI POST, VAYALPAD MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 3. M.OBUL REDDY, S/O LATE M.SIDDA REDDY , AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O D.NO.4-22, PATHAKOTAPALLE, CHINTAPARTHI POST, VAYALPAD MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. M SANJEEVA REDDY, S/O M.VENKATRAMANA REDDY , AGE 47 YEARS, CULTIVATION AND SELF EMPLOYED R/O D.NO.4-72-A, TIRUPATHI ROAD, PATHAKOTAPALLE, CHINTAPARTHI POST, VAYALPAD MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 3. THE DISTRICTCOLLECTOR, RAYACHOTI,ANNAMAYYA DISTRIC 4. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, RAYACHOTI,ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT REVENUE OFFICER, COLLECTORATE OFFICE,RAYACHOTI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 6. THE SUB COLLECTOR, MADANAPALLE,ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 7. THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, O/O THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, VAYALPAD-VALMIKIPURAM, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 8. THE SACHIVALAYAM SURVEYOR, GRAMA SACHIVALAYAM -I, CHINTAPARTHY,VAYALPAD- VALMIKIPURAM MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 9. THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, CHINTAPARTHY,VAYALPAD- VALMIKIPURAM 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 topleased to issue a Writ Order or a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by directing the Respondents 2 to 9 not to dispossess in any manner including under the guise of the survey conducting in the schedule property viz Annamayya District - Vayalpad Sub District - Chintaparthi Gramam and Post - Pathakotapalle Village - S.No.1051/1 - an extent of Ac. 3.23 Cents (Presently the existing extent is Ac.0.03 Cents , i.e, under land acquisition taken over by you kind authorities No.4 vide proceedings O.C./D2/3894/98 Dt.05-11-2001- thus the present existing extent is Ac.3.20 Cents - Full , Bounded By East Poramboku Gutta, West Land of Syed Sab and others, Temple, North Land of T.Subash Reddy and others, South Madanapalle - Tirupathi Road, and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 9 to consider the Representation given by the petitioners and pass 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 Respondents not to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners, including conducting any survey in the present schedule viz Annamayya District - Vayalpad Sub District - Chintaparthi Gramam and Post - Pathakotapalle Village S.No.1051/1 - an extent of Ac. 3.23 Cents (Presently the existing extent is Ac.0.03 Cents , i.e, under land acquisition taken over by you kind authorities No.4 vide proceedings O.C./D2/3894/98 Dt.05-11-2001 )- thus the present existing extent is Ac.3.20 Cents - Full , Bounded By East Poramboku Gutta, West Land of Syed Sab and others, Temple, North Land of T.Subash Reddy and others, South: Madanapalle - Tirupathi Road, pending disposal of the present Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. JITENDRA KANYALUR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23095 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 a direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, by directing the Respondents 2 to 9 not to dispossess in any manner including under the guise of the survey conducting in the schedule property viz Annamayya District - Vayalpad Sub District - Chintaparthi Gramam and Post - Pathakotapalle Village - S.No.1051/1 - an extent of Ac. 3.23 Cents (Presently the existing extent is Ac.0.03 Cents , i.e, under land acquisition taken over by you kind authorities No.4 vide proceedings O.C./D2/3894/98 Dt.05-11-2001- thus the present existing extent is Ac.3.20 Cents - Full , Bounded By East Poramboku Gutta, West Land of Syed Sab and others, Temple, North Land of T.Subash Reddy and others, South Madanapalle - Tirupathi Road, and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 9 to consider the Representation given by the petitioners 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: “..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 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 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." "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." 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 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: 25.09.2025 TVN 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 215 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.23095 OF 2025 Date: 25.09.2025 TVN