APHC010513512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 26527 OF 2025 Between: Sureddy Rama Subba Reddy, S/o.Pedda Kasi Reddy, Aged.57years, Occ Agriculture, R/o.H.No.5-124 A, Tarlupadu Village Prakasam District. Tarlapadu Mandal, ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, at Ongole. 3. The Sub Collector, Markapur, Prakasam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam 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 pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4herein in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0-70 cents Sy.No.48/2, JagannadhapuramVillage, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District, issuing any notice, opportunity and without following due process of law illegal, arbitrary, colorable exercise of powers, and violative of Articles 14, 21 L.P.No.359 situated at in without , as and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles p' of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein, not to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0-70 cents in Sy.No. 48/2, L.P.No.359 situated at Jagannadhapuram Village, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated Petition in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to the respondents 2 to 4 herein, not to dispossess the petitioner from the direct agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0-70 cents in Sy.No.48/2, L.P.No.359 situated at Jagannadhapuram Village. Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District pending disposal of the main Writ Petitio. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATA REDDY CHITTEM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order; APHC010513512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 26527/2025 Between: 1.SUREDDY RAMA SUBBA REDDY, S/O.PEDDA KASl REDDY, R/O.H.NO.5-124 A, TARLAPADUMANDAL,PRAKASAM AGED.57YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, TARLUPADUVILLAGE, DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARY BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AT ONGOLE. 3.THE SUB COLLECTOR, MARKAPUR, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 4.THE TAHSILDAR, TARLUPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM 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 Direction more particularlyone in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4herein in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0-70 cents in Sy.No.48/2, L.P.No.359 JagannadhapuramViltage, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District, without issuing any notice, opportunity and without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, colorable exercise of powers, and violative of Articles 14, 21 situated at v^^ and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles o natural justice, consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein not to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0-70 cents in Sy.No. 48/2, L.P.No.359 situated at Jagannadhapuram Village Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 20?S Petition under Section 151 CPC in the affidavit filed in praying that in the circumstances stated support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein, not to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural lands to Sy.No.48/2, L.P.No.359 an extent of Ac.0-70 cents in M.nWoi D 1 r. at Jagannadhapuram Village, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District pending disposal of the main Writ Petition, and pass ’ Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA REDDY CHITTEM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.26527 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 particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4herein in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0-70 cents in Sy.No.48/2, situated at JagannadhapuramVIllage, Tarlupadu L.P.No.359 Mandal, Prakasam District, without issuing any notice, opportunity and without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary, colorable exercise of powers, and violative of Articles 14, 21 and Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 herein, not to dispossess the petitioner from the agricultural lands to an extent of Ac.0-70 cents in Sy.No. 48/2, LP.No.359 situated at Village, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District 300-A of the Jagannadhapuram and to pass..." 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 with law. 2. It is 3. In Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu,' a three-Judge Bench of the Court, while discussing the Indian law on the subject, observed Hon’bte Apex as under; ..It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned, is entitled to retain his the person in peaceful possession possession and in order to protect such possession he may even reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake use who (2004)1 see 769 IK 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 \/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 Vs. State of U.P. and others^, 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: 5. "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." Hi 977) 1 see 188 H2004) 13 see 518 In the celebrated case of/Wane/fa Ganc//)/vs. Union of India'*, the r 6. 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. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should not be 7. 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 8. 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. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. '‘AIR 1978 SC 25 Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR — SECTlON“OFFlCER //TRUE COPY// To, The Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, at Ongole. 3. The Sub Collector, Markapur, Prakasam District. 4. The Tahsildar, Tarlupadu Mandal, Prakasam District. 5. One CC to SRI. VENKATA REDDY CHITTEM, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP for REVENUE, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies 1. vna vV t ' HIGH COURT DATED:24/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 26527 OF 2025 . Curreni 6eciion ^ j^spatcv^^B DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS