APHC010217802023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 11909/2023 Between: 1. ABDUL KHADAR BASHA, S/O MD BARI, AGED 52 YRS OCC. EXSERVICE MEN, D. NO.11-36-19 AZEEMABAD, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE) SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER RDO, , ANAKAPALLI. 4. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER M R O, , OFFICE, CHODAVARAM. 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, CHODAVARAM P.S., CHODAVARAM 6. SMT KOLLMALA NOOKA SRI UMA MAHESWARAI DEVI, W/O LATE KALLI MALLA SRINU, AGED 45 YRS BUCHAYAPETA MANDAL, PEDA MADINA VILLAGE, CHODAVARAM ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 7. NAMBANI MALU NAIDU, S/ONAMBANI RAMU NAIDU, AGED .MAJOR VENKANNAPALEM VILLAGE, CHODAVARAM MANDAL ANAKAPALLI 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 pass an Order to Issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly in the Nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, their officials, their men, agents particularly R-2 to R-4 are trying to Interefere into the Petitioners Possession and Enjoymnet of the Property i.e., Land in an Extent of Ac 3-40 cents in S.No.591/4 of Venkkannapalem village , Chodavaram Mandal Anakapallil District without issuance of any Notice nor following the procedure as requied under the law even though the Respondents 2 to 4 themselves handed over the possession of land to the petitioner in view of D-Form patta , all are Illegal, Unlawful, Violation of Principles of Natural Justice , Violation of Article 14,19,300-A- of the Constitution of India Conssequetntly to 2 direct the respondents 2 to 4 their men and officials not to interefere into the petitioners possession and enjoymnet of the property in S.No.591/4 Ac3-40 cents including by dispossesion in the interest of the justice. and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 to pass an order , to direct the Respondents Officials 2 to 4 not to interefere into the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the property covered in S.No.591/14 extent Ac5-40 cents by any means or what so ever including dispossession pending disposal of the main writ petition in the inteest of the justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HOME 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. T V SRI DEVI The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.11909 of 2023 ORDER:- The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: <…to pass an order to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, their officials, their men, agents particularly R-2 to R-4 are trying to interfere into the Petitioners Possession and Enjoyment of the Property i.e., land in an extent of Ac.3-40 cents in S.No.591/4 of Venkkannapalem Village, Chodavaram Mandal, Anakapallil District, without issuance of any Notice nor following the procedure as required under the law even though the Respondents 2 to 4 themselves handed over the possession of land to the petitioner in view of D-Form patta, all are illegal, unlawful, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, Violation of Article 14,19,300-A of the Constitution of India Consequently to direct the respondents 2 to 4 their men and officials not to interfere into the petitioners possession and enjoyment of the property in S.No.591/4 Ac3-40 of Venkkannapalem Village, Chodavaram Mandal, Anakapallil District including by dispossession of the petitioner in the interest of the justice and to pass such other order.…” 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities have issued DKT Patta and pattadar passbook to the petitioner. The petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property. The respondent authorities are trying to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment, without following due process of law. 3. Despite lapse of three years, the respondents have not filed counter-affidavit. 4 4. 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.= 5. 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.= 6. 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 5 "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." 7. 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. 8. 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). 9. Hence, without going into merits of the case, 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: 10.02.2026 KBN 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 19 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.11909 of 2023 Date: 10.02.2026 KBN