APHC010522642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 27326 of 2025 Between: 1. NAGA NADHANA HALLI SAI LAVANYA, W/O. N. KOTESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D. NO. 5818, THARAKARAMA NAGAR, KARAKAMABADI VILLAGE AND POST, RENUGUNTA MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. G. BALAJI,, S/O. LATE. G. VIJAYAVELUREDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O. D. NO. 1-69, KATHERAPALLI VILLAGE, KARVETINAGARAMMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...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 high handed acts, things and deeds of the respondents more particularly respondent no.3 authorities without jurisdiction, without following due process of law and interfering into the petitioners possession and enjoyment of residential site property without issued any notice to the petitioners in house plot 2 nos.4 part, 5 part and 6 part an extent of 133.3 Sq. Yards and an extent of 200 Sq. yards in Survey No. 477/B and present revenue sub-division survey no.477/PI an extent of Acs.1.25 cents at Residential Area No.36, Tiruchanuru Village Accounts, Tiruchanuru Village Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadhar Pass Books Rules, 1989 and consequently direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 and their authorities not to interfere in the petitioners subject properties in house plot nos.4 part, 5 part and 6 part an extent of 133.3 Sq. Yards and an extent of 200 Sq. yards in Survey No. 477/B and present revenue sub- division survey no.477/PI an extent of Acs.1.25 cents at Residential Area No. 36, Tiruchanuru Village Accounts, Tiruchanuru Village Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh without following due process of law. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CHAMARTHY LEELA SRINNIVASA VARMA 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: “… issue a writ, order, or direction more particularly one in the Nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the high handed acts, things and deeds of the respondents more particularly respondent no.3 authorities without jurisdiction, without following due process of law and interfering into the petitioners possession and enjoyment of residential site property without issued any notice to the petitioners in house plot nos.4 part, 5 part and 6 part an extent of 133.3 Sq. Yards and an extent of 200 Sq. yards in Survey No. 477/B and present revenue sub- division survey no.477/PI an extent of Acs.1.25 cents at Residential Area No.36, Tiruchanuru Village Accounts, Tiruchanuru Village Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadhar Pass Books Rules, 1989 and consequently direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 and their authorities not to interfere in the petitioners subject properties in house plot nos.4 part, 5 part and 6 part an extent of 133.3 Sq. Yards and an extent of 200 Sq. yards in Survey No. 477/B and present revenue sub-division survey no.477/PI an extent of Acs.1.25 cents at Residential Area No. 36, Tiruchanuru Village Accounts, Tiruchanuru Village Panchayat, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, Andhra Pradesh without following due process of law 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. 4 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 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.” 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 5 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." 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. 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 09.10.2025 siva 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.27326 of 2025 Date: 09.10.2025 siva