APHC010508742025 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: 26215/2025 Between: 1. MANDAPAKA CHINA KAMESWARA RAO, S/O VISHNU MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 1-59, MUNAGALA VILLAGE, KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 2. MANDAPAKA VENKATAPATHI,, S/O CHINNA KAMESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O D. NO. 1-59, MUNAGALA VILLAGE, KORUKONDAMANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATI,GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 5. SUB COLLECTOR, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 6. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM 7. THE MANDAL TAHASILDAR, KORUKONDA MANDAL, KORUKONDA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 8. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KORUKONDA PS, KORUKONDA 9. VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, , MUNAGALA VILLAGE KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 10. RENTALA ANANTHA SREE RAMA CHANDRA MURTHY, S/O GANGA RAJU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, MUNAGALA VILLAGE, KORUKONDA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI 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 2 Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus a) Declaring the action of the official respondents 7 and 8, without following due process of law and interfering into petitioners peaceful possession over the land of an extent of Ac. 3.16 cents in Sy. No. 57/1 of Munagala Village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District is illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Articles 14,16,19 and 300A of Constitution of India onsequently directing the official respondents follow due process of law that not to interfering into petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment by cultivating over the land an extent of Ac. 3.16 cents in Sy. No. 57/1 of Munagala Village of Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District c) Pass such other order and orders that may deem fit and proper for the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice or else we put to irreparable loss and sustain serious hardship 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 may be pleased to direct the official respondents to follow due process of law including not to interfere into petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment by cultivating the land of an extent of Ac. 3.16 cents in Sy. No. 57/1 of Munagala Village Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. R K ACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.26215 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus a) Declaring the action of the official respondents 7 and 8, without following due process of law and interfering into petitioners’ peaceful possession over the land of an extent of Ac.3.16 cents in Sy.No.57/1 of Munagala Village, Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District, is illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust, contrary to law and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Articles 14,16,19 and 300A of Constitution of India; b) Consequently directing the official respondents follow due process of law that not to interfering into petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment by cultivating over the land an extent of Ac.3.16 cents in Sy.No.57/1 of Munagala Village of Korukonda Mandal, East Godavari District; c) Pass such other order and orders that may deem fit and proper for the circumstance of the case in the interest of justice or else we put to irreparable loss and sustain serious hardship…” 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: 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 4 “..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 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." 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 5 "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." 6. In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India4, 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: 24.09.2025 KBN 4 AIR 1978 SC 25