Vasupalli Satyavathi Vs the Government of Ap

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 orders, or Direction more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the 5th respondent in threatening to demolish by dispossessing the petitioner's house construction for an admeasuring 71-1 Sq. Yards of Plot No. 327, in Lay out No. 34 in Sy. No. 67, Situated

¶19

2

¶20

in Y.S.R Jagananna Colony, Paradeshipalem Hamlet, Kapuluppada, Bheemunipatnam Mandal,Visakhapatnam District is highly illegal, arbitrary and violation of Art. 14, 21, 300(A) of Constitution of India.and consequently direct the 5th respondent not to interefer in the petitioner's house construction for an admeasuring 71-1 Sq. Yards of Plot No. 327, in Lay out No. 34 in Sy. No. 67 Situated in Y.S.R Jagananna Colony, Paradeshipalem Hamlet, Kapuluppada, Bheemunipatnam Mandal,Visakhapatnam District without due process of law.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.VENKATESWARLU GADA

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of the 5^th respondent in threatening to demolish and dispossess the petitioner from the undergoing construction admeasuring 71.1 sq. yards of plot No.327 in layout No.34 in Sy.No.67 situated in Y.S.R.Jaganna Colony, Paradeshipalem Hamlet, Kapuluppada, Bheemunipatnam Mandal, Visakhapatnam, without following due procedure of law, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Despite lapse of 2½ years, the respondents have not filed counter. This Court, vide order 05.07.2023, directed the respondents not to take any coercive action in respect of the subject property without following due process of law. As the respondents have not filed counter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition.

¶30

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:

¶31

“..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.”

¶32

1 (2004)1 SCC 769

¶33

4

¶34

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:-

¶35

“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.”

¶36

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:

¶37

"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."

¶38

"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."

¶39

2 ( 1977) 1 SCC 188

¶40

3 (2004) 13 SCC 518

¶41

5

¶42

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.

¶43

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).

¶44

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.

¶45

As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶46

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶47

Date: 24.12.2025

¶48

Siva/JLSR

¶49