APHC010452642026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24625/2026 Between: 1. GANTLA NAGULAMMA, W/O. GANTLA RAMUNAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE RIO. DOOR NO.4-114/3, B.C. COLONY, VEPAGUNTA, VISAKHAPATNAM 530047, REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SMT. KARRI RAMALAKSHMI, W/O. KARRI PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RIO. DOOR NO.1-316, ASAKAPALLI JUNCTION, SABBAVARAM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT 531035. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (ENDOWMENTS) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI 522237. 2. THE VISAKHAPATNAM METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VMRDA, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VISAKHAPATNAM 530017. 3. SRI VARAHA LAKSHMI NARASIMHA SWAMY DEVASTHANAM, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SIMHACHALAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT 530028. ...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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in 2 Survey No.47/2A, Vepagunta Village, Visakhapatnam District, without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property except by following due process of law 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 direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Survey No.47/2A, Vepagunta Village, Visakhapatnam District, except by following due process of law Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K KEDHARNATH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.24625 OF 2026 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents in interfering with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property situated in Survey No.47/2A, Vepagunta Village, Visakhapatnam District, without following due process of law, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to interfere with the Petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property except by following due process of law and pass such other order or orders.…” 2. The short grievance of the petitioners in the present Writ Petition is that the petitioners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property admeasuring 145 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.47/2A, Vepagunta Village, Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits. The same was purchased through registered sale deed bearing document No.3545/1985 dated 25.03.1985. The Municipal Corporation has identified and granted assessment number and electricity connection. The subject property is old structure and required repairs and maintenance. The petitioners sought to undertake necessary repairs to the existing structure. At this juncture, the respondents and their officials are interfering with the same. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property without following due process of law. 4 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents. 4. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 01.09.2026 KBN 7 27 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.24625 of 2026 Date: 01.09.2026 KBN