APHC010570422025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 29497/2025 Between: 1. VASA KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. VASA NARSANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.1-207, PALLAPU VEEDHI, ANGARA VILLAGE, KAPILESWARAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT, KAKINADA (EARLIER PART OF EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, DR.B.R.AMBEDKARKONASEEMA DISTRICT 4. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, KAPILESWARAPURAM MANDAL, DR.B.R.AMBEDKARKONASEEMADISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 5. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, ANGARA VILLAGE, KAPILESWARAPURAM MANDAL, DR. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA 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 topleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly, the Respondent No.4 herein in interfering with the peaceful possession of the Petitioners property without issuing any notice and trying to evict the Petitioner from subject property bearing Door No. 1-207, in Plot No.433, admeasuring Ac.0.03cents in Survey.No.219 situate in Angara Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema District (Earlier part of East Godavari District) as being illegal, arbitrary, irregular, lacking application of mind, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondents herein not to interfere with Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment over 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 pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 not to interfere with the possession, enjoyment and ownership of the Petitioner over the subject property bearing door No. 1-207, in Plot No.433, admeasuring an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Survey No.219 situate in Angara Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema District (Earlier part of East Godavari District), pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASHWANI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29497 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents, more particularly, the Respondent No.4 herein in interfering with the peaceful possession of the Petitioners property without issuing any notice and trying to evict the Petitioner from subject property bearing Door No. 1-207, in Plot No.433, admeasuring Ac.0.03cents in Survey.No.219 situate in Angara Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R.AmbedkarKonaseema District (Earlier part of East Godavari District) as being illegal, arbitrary, irregular, lacking application of mind, violative of principles of natural justice, without jurisdiction, and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and Consequently direct the Respondents herein not to interfere with Petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment over the subject property and pass…” 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that an extent of Ac.0.03 cents in Sy.No.219, a house site, situated in Angara Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, was allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner has been residing in the said land for the last 32 years. Now the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land, without issuing any notice and without following due procedure of law. Page 4 of 6 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.” 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: 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 "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 India 4 , 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 petitioner’s 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: 28.10.2025 TVN 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 54 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29497 OF 2025 Date: 28.10.2025 TVN