APHC010179212023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RAMA DEVI KOVURI, W/o. LATE SAMBASIVA RAO AGED 57 YEARS, R/o. H.NO.10 PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. SMT. CHAKRALA VIJAYAKUMARI, W/o. MOHANRAO, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R MANDALAM, PATCHAVA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 523271. 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GU DISTRICT. 2. COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AT PRAKASAM BHAWAN ,ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SANTHANUTHALA PADU,PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIMAK DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 5. THE CHEEMAKURTHY MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER CHEEMAKURTHY PRAKASAM DISTRICT IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 9102/2023 SMT. RAMA DEVI KOVURI, W/o. LATE SAMBASIVA RAO AGED 57 YEARS, R/o. H.NO.10-15, SURYA NAGAR, CHIMAKURTHY, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -523226. SMT. CHAKRALA VIJAYAKUMARI, W/o. MOHANRAO, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/o. D.No.3-104, JARUGUMALLI MANDALAM, PATCHAVA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH 523271. ...PETITIONER(S) AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GU COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AT PRAKASAM BHAWAN ,ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH - 523001 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SANTHANUTHALA PADU,PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH THE TAHSILDAR, CHIMAKURTHY MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH -523226 THE CHEEMAKURTHY MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER CHEEMAKURTHY PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3330] TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO SMT. RAMA DEVI KOVURI, W/o. LATE SAMBASIVA RAO AGED 15, SURYA NAGAR, CHIMAKURTHY, 523226. SMT. CHAKRALA VIJAYAKUMARI, W/o. MOHANRAO, AGED 34 104, JARUGUMALLI MANDALAM, PATCHAVA, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA ...PETITIONER(S) THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AT PRAKASAM BHAWAN ,ONGOLE, PRAKASAM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SANTHANUTHALA URTHY MANDAL, PRAKASAM THE CHEEMAKURTHY MUNICIPALITY, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER CHEEMAKURTHY PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 action of respondents 2 to 5 herein in trying to demolish the residential house of the petitioner No.1 constructed in an extent of Ac.0-01 V2 cents in Sy.No.8 of Suryanagar of Cheemakurthy Mandal in Prakasam District, by trying to dispossess her from the said property, without issuing any notice or opportunity and without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 herein, not to demolish the residential house of the petitioner No.1 constructed in an extent of Ac.0-01 1/2 cents in Sy.No.8 of Suryanagar of Cheemakurthy Mandal in Prakasam District, by trying to dispossess her from the said property, except in accordance with law, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners stated that the petitioner No.1 died and the petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the petitioner No.1, and cause in the Writ Petition survives. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are landless poor persons and the petitioner No.1 had occupied a piece of land to an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in Survey No.8 of Suryanagar of Cheemakurthy Mandal and constructed a small hut in an extent of Ac.0-01½ cents and later they have obtained power supply connection vide service No.4344106008760 and also obtained gas connection for the said house. 3. Further admitted that the respondents have issued a notice dated 06.02.2023 to the petitioners calling for explanation regarding alleged encroachment of the subject property, and the petitioners were not submitted any explanation to the notice dated 06.02.2023. 4. As per the instructions provided by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, no coercive steps have been taken by the respondent No.5 like demolition or dispossession of the petitioners from the subject property, as on date. 4 5. 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.” 6. 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 7. 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." 8. 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. 9. 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). 10. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition directing the petitioners herein to submit explanation to the notice dated 06.02.2023 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 copy of the order. On filing such explanation, the respondent No.5 is directed to examine the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and communicate the decision to the petitioners herein and obtain a valid acknowledgement from the petitioners. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps with regard to subject property. 11. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 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: 28.01.2026 Harin 7 81 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO W.P.No. 9102 OF 2023 Date: 28-01-2026 Harin