APHC010490102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25801 OF 2025 Between: 1. K Sirisha, W/o K, Yerram Reddy, Aged about 47 years, Occ: House Wife, R/o K.V Palli Village and Mandal, Annamayya District 2. A. Varadhi, S/o A. Gurrappa, Aged about 44 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Majara Bandavaddipalli, K.V Palli Post, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District 3. D. Reddy Sekhar, S/o D. Siddalingam, Aged about 33 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o Majara Kothavaddipalli, K.V Palli Post, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings District. 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District at Rayachoty 3. The Tahsildar, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District 4. The Village Revenue Officer, K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District Amaravathi, Guntur ...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 of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house properties of an extent of i) 177.79 Sq.yards, ii) 148.88 Sq.yards and iii) 153.33 Sq.yards respectively, situated at Sy.No.590-11 of K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District, without issuing any notice or opportunity of personal hearing or following the due process of law is questioned as the same is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties in Sy.No.590-11 of K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District. 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 with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house properties of an extent of i) 177.79 Sq.yards, ii) 148.88 Sq.yards and iii) 153.33 Sq.yards respectively, situated at Sy.No.590-11 of K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon’ble court. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following order: r-' APHC0-[0490102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25801/2025 Between: 1.K SIRISHA, W/0 K, YERRAM REDDY. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 000 HOUSE WIFE, R/0 K.V PALLI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 2.A. VARADHI, S/0 A. GURRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. OCC AGRICULTURE, R/0 MAJARA BANDAVADDIPALLI, K.V PALLI POST, K.V PALLI MANDAL. ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 3.D. REDDY SEKHAR, S/0 D. SIDDALINGAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. OCC AGRICULTURE, R/0 MAJARA KOTHAVADDIPALLI, K.V PALLI POST. K.V.PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL REVENUE DEPARTMENT. SECRETARIAT SECRETARY, BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY 3.THE TAHSILDAR, K.V PALLI MANDAL, DISTRICT ANNAMAYYA 4.THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, K.V PALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLI 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 to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house properties of an extent of i) 177.79 Sq.yards, ii) 148.88 Sq.yards and iii) 153.33 Sq.yards respectively, situated at Sy.No.590-11 of K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District, without issuing any notice or opportunity of personal hearing or following the due process of law is questioned 2 as the same is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties in Sy.No.590-11 of K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal. Annamayya District 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 High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents, not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house properties of an extent of i) 177.79 Sq.yards, ii) 148.88 Sq.yards and iii) 153.33 Sq.yards respectively, situated at Sy.No.590-11 of K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon’ble court, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 25801 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 of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house properties of an extent ofi) 177.79 Sq.yards, ii) 148.88 Sq.yards and Hi) 153.33 Sq.yards respectively, situated at Sy.No.590-11 of K.V Palli Village, K.V Pain Mandal, Annamayya District, without issuing any notice or opportunity of personal hearing or following the due process of law is questioned as the same is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties in Sy.No.590-11 of K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District 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 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, reported in (2004)1 3. see 769, a three-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 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 Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1977(1) SCO 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 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. 5. In, H.B.Yogalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2004) 13 see 518 the apex Court held that without any show notice or hearing neither demolition can take place nor a person may be dispossessed from the property, to quote relevant portion: cause "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 of 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 petitioners should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law as held by the Rame Gowda’s case that the petitioners who are continue in such possession, they shouldn’t dispossess without being except in accordance with law. 7. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners, 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/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, State of AP, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The District Collector, Annamayya District at Rayachoty 3. The Tahsildar, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District 4. The Village Revenue Officer, K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal Annamayya District 5. One CC to Sri. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:23/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 25801 OF 2025 i DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS