Garudapuri Hari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Garudapuri Hari Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of by directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property except by following due process of law; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondents 4 and 5 in insisting the petitioner to vacate his agricultural lands (Ac.4.55 cents in Sy.No.1727/2 and Ac.1.43 cents in Sy.No.1886/2A of Tippireddygaripalli Revenue Village, Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Tirupati District) under the guise of a proposed survey, without following any known procedure established by law, is illegal, and whether the respondents can interfere with his possession otherwise than by due process of law.

Court's answer

The petitioner should not be dispossessed from the subject property except in accordance with the law, as held in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769.

Ratio / Principle

The respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property except by following due process of law; the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 by a 54-year-old cultivator challenging the insistence by the Tahsildar and Mandal Surveyor, Chinnagottigallu Mandal (Tirupati District) that he vacate agricultural land admeasuring Ac.4.55 cents in Sy.No.1727/2 and Ac.1.43 cents in Sy.No.1886/2A of Tippireddygaripalli Revenue Village, allegedly at the instance of local political leaders under the guise of a proposed survey and without any known procedure established by law, in violation of the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution. Drawing on Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769 (three-Judge Bench), together with Ram Ratan, (1977) 1 SCC 188, State of W.B. v. Vishnunarayan, (2002) 4 SCC 134, H.B. Yogalaya, (2004) 13 SCC 518, and Maneka Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 25, the Court held that a person in possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law, and disposed of the petition by directing the respondents not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property except by following due process of law. No order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

APHC010278982025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3330]

TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No. 14059 of 2025

Between:

GARUDAPURI HARI, S/O. REDDEPPA AGED 54 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, 9 R/O. D.NO.4-90. KUMMARAPALLI VILLAGE, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI DISTRICT AT TIRUPATI.

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI REVENUE DIVISION, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

THE TAHSILDAR CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

THE MANDAL SURVEYOR, CHINNAGOTTIGALLU MANDAL, TIRUPATI 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents 4 and 5 in insisting petitioner to vacate from his agricultural landed property admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.55 cents in Sy.No.1727/2 and Ac.1.43 cents in Sy.No.1886/2A of Tippireddygaripalli Revenue Village in Chinnagottigaliu Mandal of Tirupati District at the instance of local political leaders under the guise of survey proposed by

2

respondents 4 and 5, without following any known procedure established by law, as illegal irregular, irrational, without any authority of law and in violation of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioners possession and enjoyment of aforesaid lands and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.RAJENDRA C

Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following:

3

ORDER:

The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“… issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents 4 & 5 in insisting petitioner to vacate from his agricultural landed property admeasuring an extent of Ac.4.55 cents in Sy.No.1727/2 & Ac.1.43 cents in Sy.No.1886/2A of Tippireddygaripalli Revenue Village in Chinnagottigallu Mandal of Tirupati District at the instance of local political leaders under the guise of survey proposed by respondents 4 & 5, without following any known procedure established by law, as illegal, irregular, irrational, without any authority of law and in violation of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in any manner with petitioner‟s possession and enjoyment of aforesaid lands and pass such other order or orders ….”

It is the pleading of the petitioner 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.

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

1 (2004)1 SCC 769

4

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.”

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.”

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 showcause 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."

2 ( 1977) 1 SCC 188

3 (2004) 13 SCC 518

5

"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."

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.

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).

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner 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: 02.09.2025

siva

4 AIR 1978 SC 25

6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

WRIT PETITION No.14059 of 2025

Date: 02.09.2025

siva