APHC010498292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH^ AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) 050 yi ■y' o If m V/* viSy it at -n m§ A FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25596 OF 2025 Between: 1. Datia Lakshmi, W/o. Ravi Varma, Aged 45 years, Occ Home Maker, R/o.D.No.1-28, Pangidigudem Village, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru District. 2. Arthamuri Krishnaveni, W/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Aged 59 years, Occ Home Maker, R/o. Ajjaram Village, Peravali Mandal, West Godavari District. 3. Sabbella Sailaja, W/o. Satti Reddy, Aged 43 years, Occ House Wife, R/o. Ajjaram Village, Peravali Mandal West Godavari District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Government, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Eluru District at Eluru. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem Revenue Division, Jangareddygudem, Eluru District. 4. The Tahsildar, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru District. 5. Mattaparthi Venkat Rao, S/o. Raghavulu, R/o. Pangidigudem Village, Jangareddygudem Mandal Eluru District. 6., Poka Raghavulu, S/o. Unknown, R/o. Pangidigudem Village, ^ Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru District 7. Andugula Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Unknown, R/o. Pangidigudem Village, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru District. 8. Golime Yesu, S/o. Unknown, R/o. Pangidigudem Village, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru District. 9. Chiparthi Giri Babu, S/o. Unknown, R/o. Pangidigudem Village, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru District. 10. Lakkabattula Venkatesh, S/o. Unknown, R/o. Pangidigudem Village, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru District. ll.Podapati Yesu, S/o. Unknown, R/o. Pangidigudem Village, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru District. 12.Jonnakuti Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Unknown, R/o. Pangidigudem Village, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru 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 action of respondents, more of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the particularly and 4THrespondents at the instance of respondent No. 5 to 12, in insisting the petitioners to vacate from their landed properties admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.70 cents, Ac. 1.30 cents, Ac.2.99 cents, Ac.2.00 cents, Ac.0.50 cents, Ac.2.12 cents and Ac.0.392 cents respectively covered by S.No.222/1, 222/2, 215/1A situated at Pangidigudem Revenue Village of Jangareddygudem Mandal in Eluru District, under the guise of ceiling excess land though petitioners purchased lands from legally allowable holdings of declarants as per proceedings in L.C.C.N0.2379/KVR/75/JRG dated 16.04.2005 issued by the 3'"^ respondent, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment over their respective landed properties. 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 High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment over their landed properties admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.70 cents, Ac.1.30 cents, Ac.2.99 cents, Ac.2.00 cents, Ac.0.50 cents, Ac.2.12 cents and Ac.0.39 cents respectively covered by S.No.222/1, 222/2, 215/1A situated at Pangidigudem Revenue Village of Mandal in Eluru District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: APHC010498292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) BEE •Tp; [3330] IT. r HLeS \ FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25596/2025 Between: 1.DATLA LAKSHMI, W/0. RAVI VARMA, AGED 45 YEARS, OCC HOME MAKER, R/O.D.NO.1-28, PANGIDIGUDEM VILLAGE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. 2.ARTHAMURI KRISHNAVENI, W/0. LATE VENKAT REDDY AGED 59 YEARS, OCC HOME MAKER, R/0. AJJARAM VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3.SABBELLA SAILAJA, W/0. SATTI REDDY, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, R/0. AJJARAM VILLAGE, PERAVALI MANDAL WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI DISTRICT. 2. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ELURU DISTRICT AT ELURU. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JANGAREDDYGUDEM REVENUE DIVISION JANGAREDDYGUDEM, ELURU DISTRICT. 4. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. 5. 5. MATTAPARTHI VENKAT RAO, S/0. RAGHAVULU, R/0. PANGIDIGUDEM VILLAGE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL ELURU DISTRICT. 6. 6. POKA RAGHAVULU, S/0. UNKNOWN, PANGIDIGUDEM VILLAGE, MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT 7. ANDUGULA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/0. UNKNOWN, R/0. PANGIDIGUDEM VILLAGE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. 8. 8. GOLIME YESU, S/0. UNKNOWN VILLAGE, DISTRICT. 9. 9. CHIPARTHI GIRI BABU, S/0. PANGIDIGUDEM VILLAGE, MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. 10. 10.LAKKABATTULA VENKATESH, S/0. UNKNOWN, R/0. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR R/0. JANGAREDDYGUDEM R/0. PANGIDIGUDEM JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU UNKNOWN, R/0. JANGAREDDYGUDEM PANGIDIGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. 11. '■^ PODAPATI YESU, S/0. UNKNOWN, R/O. PANGIDIGUDEM DISTRICT. 12. 12.JONNAKUTI VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O. UNKNOWN PANGIDIGUDEM VILLAGE MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT. VILLAGE, JANGAREDDYGUDEM JANGAREDDYGUDEM MANDAL, ELURU R/O. JANGAREDDYGUDEM ...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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents, more particularly and 4THrespondents at the instance of respondent No. 5 to 12, in insisting the petitioners to vacate from their landed properties admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.70 cents, Ac. 1.30 cents, Ac.2.99 cents, Ac.2.00 cents, Ac.0.50 cents, Ac.2.12 cents and Ac.0.39 2 cents respectively covered by w 215/1A situated at Pangidigudem Revenue Village of Jangareddygudem Mandal in Eluru District, under the guise of ceiling excess land though petitioners purchased lands from legally allowable holdings of declarants , per proceedings in L.C.C.N0.2379/KVR/75/JRG dated 16.04.2005 issued by the 3RD respondent, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere i - with petitioners peaceful possession and respective landed properties and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025 as — in any manner enjoyment over their 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 interfere in any manner with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment over their landed properties admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.70 cents, Ac.1.30 cents, Ac.2.99 cents, Ac.2.00 cents, Ac.0.50 cents, Ac.2.12 cents and Ac.0.39 cents respectively covered by ^No.222/1, 222/2, 215/1A situated at Pangidigudem Revenue Village of Mandal in Eluru District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.SITA RAM CHAPARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE not to p THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.25596 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 action of respondents, more particularly 3'''^ and 4™ respondents at the instance of respondent No. 5 to 12, in insisting the petitioners to vacate from their landed properties admeasuring an extent of Ac.2.70 cents, Ac.1.30 cents, Ac.2.99 cents, Ac.2.00 cents, Ac.0.50 cents, Ac.2.12 cents and Ac.0.39 >2 cents respectively covered by S.No.222/1, 222/2, 215/1A situated at Pangidigudem Revenue Village of Jangareddygudem Mandal in Eluru District, under the guise of ceiling excess land though petitioners purchased lands from legally allowable holdings of declarants as per proceedings in L.C.C.No.2379/KVR/75/JRG dated 16.04.2005 issued by the respondent, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment over their respective landed properties and pass such other order in the interest of justice....” It is the pleading of the petitioners that a person in settled 2. possession of immoveable property is entitled to continue in such possession, without being dispossessed save and except in accordance 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 (2004)1 see 769 4 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. ” 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:- 4. “In State of W.B. and others Vs 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 5. 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." " (1977) 1 see 188 ^ (.7004) 13 see 518 In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India'^ 6. 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. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners should 7. 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 8. 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. Sd/- T. SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to the Government, State of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Eluru District at Eluru. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer The Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangareddygudem Revenue Division Jangareddygudem, Eluru District. 4. The Tahsildar, Jangareddygudem Mandal, Eluru District. 5. One CC to SRI SITA RAM CHAPARLA Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies gsg f- ^4: 'f, HIGH COURT DATE 0:26/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 25596 OF 2025 13 OCT 2025 X' m 0 \ y<- ..... f. o • / V.- ‘ ^ ^ A ri ( DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS