APHC010552402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28448 of 2025 Between: 1. O ADILAKSHMAMMA, W/O. BABAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.2-12-A, BEEDUPALLE VILLAGE, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 2. O. SHIVAMMA,, W/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/O.D.NO.2-8-A, 2 WARD, BEEDUPALLE VILLAGE, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT, PUTTAPARTHI. 3. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUTTAPARTHI, SRI SATHYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, PUTTAPARTHI MANDAL, SRI SATHYA SAI 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus aggrieved by the action of the 4thRespondent in evicting the petitioners for an extent of land admeasuring house site Ac.0.01 cents each in Sy.No.115/B situated at Beedupalle Village, Puttaparti Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, without issuing notice and without following due process of law is illegal, 2 arbitrary, violative of Principles of natural justice and property rights as guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to dispossess or interfere with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the above said house sites. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K NARSI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus aggrieved by the action of the 4th Respondent in evicting the petitioners for an extent of land admeasuring house site Ac.0.01 cents each in Sy.No.115/B situated at Beedupalle Village, Puttaparti Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District, without issuing notice and without following due process of law is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of natural justice and property rights as guaranteed under Article 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the 4th respondent to dispossess or interfere with the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the above said house sites and pass such other order or orders ….” 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 possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 4 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 5 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 over the subject property, except by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 15.10.2025 siva 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28448 of 2025 Date: 15.10.2025 siva