APHC010551602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 28883/2025 Between: 1. K BALAJI, .K. BALAJI, S/O. LATE K. RAMA CHANDRAIAH, AGED 61 YEARS, RETIRED, C-86, VAIKUNTAPURAM, MR PALLI, TIRUPATI 2. T. SURENDAR REDDY, T. SURENDAR REDDY, S/O.SRINIVASULU REDDY, AGED 63 YEARS. RETIRED, DOOR NO. 19-8-75/C/I, YADAVA COLONY, TIRUPATI. 3. T. SUBRAMANYA REDDY, S/O.LATE TIMMAPURAM MUNIRATNAM AGED 65 YEARS, RETIRED, DOOR NO.2-89, C MALLAVARAM - 512 505 4. C. SAKUNTALAMMA, C. SAKUNTALAMMA,, W/O.LATE C. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED 88 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O. 19-8-124, HATHIRAMJI COLONY, TIRUPATHI - 517 501. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT (ASSIGNMENT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BALAJI DISTRICT, TIRUPATI. 3. THE A P POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, THIRUPATHI REP BY ITS PRESIDENT, REG NO 539/79 THIRUPATH. THIRUPATHI DISTRICT. 4. THE A P POLICE OFFICERS COOP HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT, REG NO.86/2015 ,THIRUPATHI. 5. THE TAHASILDAR, TIRUPATHI RURAL, TIRUPATHI. ...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 order or orders, direction or directions, writ or writs particularly one in the writ of mandamus and declare the action of the official respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in to their house plots allotted by the 4th respondent vide house plot bearing Nos.19,20,21 and 22 situated in Sy. No.1/2A of Yogimallavaram of Tiruchunur Village accounts, Tirupati Rural Mandal without cancelling the pattas is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions A.P. Land Encroachment Act and violation 2 of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the official respondents not to interfere with the construction of residential houses by the petitioners in the above house sites and to 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 official respondents not to interfere with the construction of the petitioners in to their house plots allotted by the 4th respondent in house plot bearing Nos.19,20,21 and 22 situated in Sy.No.1/2A of Yogimallavaram of Tiruchunur Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal so long as the pattas are subsiding in favour of petitioners pending disposal Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ASSIGNMENT 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.28883 of 2025 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue order or orders, direction or directions, writ or writs particularly one in the writ of mandamus and declare the action of the official respondents in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners into their house plots allotted by the 4th respondent vide house plot bearing Nos.19,20,21 and 22 situated in Sy.No.1/2A of Yogimallavaram of Tiruchunur Village accounts, Tirupati Rural Mandal without cancelling the pattas is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions A.P.Land Encroachment Act and violation of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the official respondents not to interfere with the construction of residential houses by the petitioners in the above house sites and to pass such other order.…” 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 settled possession of the property belonging 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 4 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." 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 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 5 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’ 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: 24.10.2025 KBN