APHC010569222025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29388 of 2025 Between: 1. KANTA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O.LATE SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.6/345-A, MAIN ROAD, PORUMAMILLA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. B.N.G. NAGRENDRA KUMARI,, S/O.B.N.G.NAGASUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCRHOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.21/42-B, MYDUKKUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 3. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 4. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. . 6. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT CIRCLE, KADAPA. 7. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. 8.. 8. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BADVEL REVENUE DIVISIONAL, BADVEL. 9. 9. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS KADAPA DIVISION, KADAPA 10. THE TAHSILDHAR, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, PORUMAMILLA. 2 11. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, PORUMAMILLA. 12. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, BADVEL SUB-DIVISION, BADVEL. 13. 13. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, PORUMAMILLA SECTION, PORUMAMILLA. ...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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ It is, therefore, prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions on part of the respondents in trying to demolish the House and building at D.No. 10/372 and 10/375 in land in an extent of 181.5 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.l 138, 10TH Ward, Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, stating that the same is required for expansion of the road, without giving any notice and without acquiring the same by following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power apart from being violative of the Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment including any attempts of demolition of House and building at D.No. 10/372 and 10/375 in land in an extent of 181.5 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.l 138, 10TH Ward, Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3. GP FOR REVENUE 4. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: "…..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ, It is, therefore, prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions on part of the respondents in trying to demolish the House and building at D.No. 10/372 and 10/375 in land in an extent of 181.5 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.l 138, 10TH Ward, Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, stating that the same is required for expansion of the road, without giving any notice and without acquiring the same by following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power apart from being violative of the Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment including any attempts of demolition of House and building at D.No. 10/372 and 10/375 in land in an extent of 181.5 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.l 138, 10th Ward, Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and pass such other orders……." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the land of an extent of 0.03¾ cents in Sy.No.1138 was purchased by the father of the petitioners situated at Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, vide registered sale deed dated 01.09.1989 vide document No.935/1980 for construction of house and the father of the petitioners herein has constructed a house in the aforesaid survey number and the petitioners having been residing in the said house since the construction of the house and they are paying 4 taxes to the Gram Panchayat and the respondent-authorities have tried to demolish the house of the petitioners for expansion of the road, however, the petitioners restrained the respondents from under razing of the stature. Despite the same, the respondent authorities have demolished the compound wall of the writ petitioners? house. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to demolish the house in the aforesaid survey number without following due procedure of law. 3. The respondents have not filed counter affidavit. That the written instruction indicates that part of existing building is demolished in Sy.No.1138 to an extent of 181.5 square yards. This Court decided to dispose of the present Writ Petition as the counter is not required in the present case and the learned Assistant Government also consented for disposal of the Writ Petition, as the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondents not to demolish the property of the writ petitioners except without following the due process of law. 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 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 5 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: "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." 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 6 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 petitioners should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law, as held in Rame Gowda’s case (supra-1). 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject property, except by following due process of law. 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: 11.02.2026 siva 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.29388 of 2025 Date: 11.02.2026 siva