APHC010335452023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 17266/2023 Between: 1. GUDLA RAMAYAMMA, W/O SURYA NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS OCCUPATION CASHEW CULTIVATOR R/O KANCHERU VILLAGE, BHOGAPURAM MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CUM LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL GREENFIELD AIRPORT, BHOGAPURAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 4. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, BHOGAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM 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 issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in trying to disposes the Petitioner from her land to an extent of Acres.1.18Cents in Sy.No.295/1 of Kancheru Village of Bhogapuram Mandal, 2 Vizianagaram District and to an extent of Acres.0.49Cents in Sy.No.294/3 of Kancheru Village of Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District, Total Acres.1.67Cents for the purpose of establishing Bhogapuram International Airport without paying compensation to Petitioner as illegal arbitrary, contrary to Act 30 of 2013,Go.Ms.No.571 dated 14.9.2012 violative of article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to disposes the petitioner from her land unless Compensation for land on par with Private Patta holders including R and R Award and damages for cutting tress is paid to the Petitioners as per Act 30 of 2013 and Go.Ms.No.571 dated 14.9.2012 and/or 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 direct the Respondents not to disposes the Petitioner from her land to an extent of Acres.1.18Cents in Sy.No.295/1 of Kancheru Village of Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District and to an extent of Acres.0.49Cents in Sy.No.294/3 of Kancheru Village of Bhogapuram Mandal Vizianagaram District, Total Acres.1.67Cents and/or pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No.3 in the W.P.No.17266 of 2023 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass such other order or orders IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 implead the Proposed Respondent as 5th Respondent in the Writ Petition No.3081/2024 and/or pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 3 2. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION 3. ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO: 17261/2023 Between: 1. GUDLA NAGALAKSHMI, W/O RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCCUPATION. CASHEW CULTIVATOR R/O KANCHERU VILLAGE, BHOGAPURAM MANDAL VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CUM LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER INTERNATIONAL GREENFIELD AIRPORT, BHOGAPURAM, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 4. THE MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER, BHOGAPURAM MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT 5. THE ANDHRA PRADESH AIRPORTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD APADCL, REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA. R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.06.03.2026 IN I.A.NO.02 OF 2023. ...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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondents in trying to disposes the Petitioner from her land to an extent of Acres.2.57Cents in Sy.No.294/1 of Kancheru Village of Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District for the purpose of establishing Bhogapuram International Airport without paying compensation to Petitioner as illegal arbitrary, contrary to Act 30 of 2013,Go.Ms.No.571 dated 14.9.2012 violative 4 of article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to disposes the petitioner from her land unless Compensation for land on par with Private Patta holders including Rand R Award and damages for cutting tress is paid to the Petitioners as per Act 30 of 2013 and Go.Ms.No.571 dated 14.9.2012 and/or pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondents not to disposes the Petitioner from her land to an extent of Acres.2.57Centsin Sy.No.294/1 of Kancheru Village of Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District and/or pass such IA NO: 2 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 implead the Proposed Respondent/5th Respondent as 5th Respondent in the Writ Petition No.17261/2023 and/or pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N BHARATH SIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. D S SIVADARSHAN 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION The Court made the following: 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.17266 and 17261 OF 2023 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical, this Court dispose of these cases by way of this common order. 2. The relief sought in these writ petitions is to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in Sy.No.295/1 to an extent of Ac.1.18 cents, Sy.No.294/3 to an extent of Ac.0.49 cents and Sy.No.294/1 to an extent of Ac.2.57 cents situated at Kancheru Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners without paying compensation and the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law i.e., The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 4. Heard Sri N.Bharath Simha Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners’ husbands were granted D-Form pattas for the land adjacent to the subject land of the writ petitions, and that the respondents have acquired the said land for the purpose of Bhogapuram International Airport. The petitioners have encroached upon the property and the Tahsildar issued a possession 6 certificate in the year 2014, which establishes that the petitioners are in possession of the property. Therefore, the respondents should acquire the land by paying compensation as established under law. 6. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit and stated that possession certificate was not issued as per the procedure as established under law and the petitioners have fabricated the said possession certificate and admitted that the D-Form patta was granted to the petitioners’ husbands and while acquiring the same, compensation of Rupees forty lakhs was paid to the petitioners’ husbands. The petitioners have not filed any evidence showing that they are in possession of the property and certificate filed by the petitioners is fabricated one. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners are not entitled for any relief, as prayed in the writ petitions and hence, prayed to dismiss these writ petitions. 7. The issue revolves round the possession certificate issued by the respondents. The petitioners are claiming the possession basing upon the possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bogapuram. The contention of the respondents counsel is that the said document is fabricated one. The Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to issue possession certificate. 8. As disputed questions of facts are involved, this Court is not inclined to go into merits. Even encroacher should be dispossessed as per law, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following judgments. 7 9. 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.” 10. In the case of Ram Ratan and others v. 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.” 11. In, H.B.Yogalaya v. 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 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 8 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." 12. In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi v. 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. 13. 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). 14. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to follow the procedure as established under law before evicting the petitioners. 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: 31.03.2026 KBN 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 9 126 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.17266 and 17261 of 2023 Date: 31.03.2026 KBN