APHC010540892025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 27930/2025 Between: 1. KOTAKONDA LAKSHMI DEVI, W/ O LATE K. SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCHOUSE WIFE, R/O BHAKARAPET VILLAGE, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT AT TIRUPATI, ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, BHAKARAPET VILLAGE, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 5. THE BHAKARAPET PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BHAKARAPET, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 6. M VENKATARATNAM, S/O M. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCNOT KNOWN, R/O BAZAR STREET, BHAKARAPET VILLAGE, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 2 7. POKALA CHANDRA, S/O P. NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OC NOT KNOWN, R/ O AYYAVANDLAPALLI VILLAGE, PULICHERLA MANDAL, CHITTOOR 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 challenging the impugned Endorsement of the Respondent No.3 vide R.O.C.A/187/2025, Dt. 04.10.2025 whereby directing the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to take necessary action on the Petitioners property (Shed) in an extent of Ac.0.01 cents situated at Sy.No.95 of Bhakarapet Village, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Tirupati District bearing Assessment No.434 and having Electrical Connection vide USC.No.5712101000455, on the ground that the subject property falls under Pond limits basing on the application submitted by the Respondent No.6 before the Respondent No.2 through PGRS vide Application No. TPT20250622122 without issuing any notice or opportunity of personal hearing and without conducting any enquiry as nothing but illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violative of principles of natural justice apart from violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of The Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish/dispossess the petitioner from the subject property and pass 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.27930 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 challenging the impugned Endorsement of the Respondent No.3 vide R.O.C.A/187/2025, Dt. 04.10.2025 whereby directing the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to take necessary action on the Petitioner’s property (Shed) in an extent of Ac.0.01 cents situated at Sy.No.95 of Bhakarapet Village, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Tirupati District bearing Assessment No.434 and having Electrical Connection vide USC.No.5712101000455, on the ground that the subject property falls under Pond limits basing on the application submitted by the Respondent No.6 before the Respondent No.2 through PGRS vide Application No.TPT20250622122 without issuing any notice or opportunity of personal hearing and without conducting any enquiry as nothing but illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violative of principles of natural justice apart from violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of The Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents not to demolish/dispossess the petitioner from the subject property and pass.…” 2. It is 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. 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 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 4 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." "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 petitioner 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: 10.10.2025 Pmk 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 33 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No:27930 OF 2025 Date: 10.10.2025 Pmk