A. Manideep Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

A. Manideep Kumar, S/o A. Harinadh, Aged about 28 years, OccAgriculture, R/o Majara Bandavaddipalli, K.V Palli Post, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District

¶11

G. Raju, S/o G. Venkatramana, Aged about 25 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o Majara Aavulayyagari palli, Garnimitta Post, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District

¶12

Yeturi Reddy Prasad Reddy, S/o Yeturi Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Majara Gandreddypalli, K.V Palli Post, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District

¶13

...PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶16

The District Collector, Annamayya District at Rayachoty

¶17

The Tahsildar, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District

¶18

The Village Revenue Officer, K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal Annamayya District

...RESPONDENTS

7

/

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 OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house properties of an extent of i) 162.22 Sq.yards, ii) 300 Sq.yards and iii) 155.55 Sq.yards respectively, situated at Sy.No.590/1 IB of K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District, without issuing any notice or opportunity of personal hearing or following the due process of law is questioned as the same is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties in Sy.No.590/1 IB of K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya^District.

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

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 interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house properties of an extent of i) 162.22 Sq.yards, ii) 300 Sq.yards and iii) 155.55 Sq.yards respectively, situated at Sy.No.590/1 IB of K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon’ble court.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following

¶27

/

¶28

APHC010490092025

¶29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3330] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶30

MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶31

PRESENT

¶32

the honourable SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 25035/2025

¶33

Between:

¶34

1.A. MANIDEEP KUMAR, S/0 A. HARINADH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCCAGRICULTURE, R/O MAJARA BANDAVADDIPALLI, K.V PALLI POST, K.V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT

¶35

2.G. RAJU, S/0 G. VENKATRAMANA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/0 MAJARA AAVULAYYAGARI PALLI, GARNIMITTA POST, K.V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT

¶36

3.YETURI REDDY PRASAD REDDY,, S/0 YETURI NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O MAJARA GANDREDDYPALLI, K.V PALLI POST, K.V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT

¶37

...PETITIONER(S)

¶38

AND

¶39

1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶40

2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTY

¶41

3.THE TAHSILDAR, K.V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT

¶42

4.THE VILLAGE REVENUE OFFICER, K.V PALLI VILLAGE, K.V PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT

¶43

...RESPONDENT{S):

¶44

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that

¶45

in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring^the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house properties of^anextentof i) 162.22 Sq.yards, ii) 300 Sq.yards and hi) 155.55 Sq.yards respectively, situated at Sy.No.590/1 IB of K.V Palli VHIage, K.V^Palli Mandal, Annamayya District, without issuing any notice or opportunity of personal hearing or following the due process of^{lawisquestioned} as the same is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of fundamental^{andconstitutional}

¶46

2

¶47

•#

¶48

rights guaranteed under articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject properties in Sy.No.590/1 IB of K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶49

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 pleased to DIRECT the Respondents,^not to interfere with the petitioners’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject house properties of an extent of i) 162.22 Sq.yards, ii) 300 Sq.yards and iii) 155.55 Sq.yards respectively, situated at Sy.No.590/1 IB of K.V Palli Village, K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Hon’ble court, and pas

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶51

1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶52

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GPFOR REVENUE

3

/7

/ /

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶58

WRIT PETITION No.25035 of 2025

¶59

ORDER:-

¶60

filed under Article 226 of the The present Writ Petition is

¶61

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶62

“...to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action^ofthe Respondents herein particularly Respondent Nos.3 and 4 iri threatening to dispossess the petitioners from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the house properties of an extent of i)162.22 Sq.yards, ii) 300 Sq.yards and iii) respectively, situated at Sy.No.590/11B of K.V.Palli^Village.K.V Palli Mandal, Annamayya District, without issuing any^noticeor opportunity of personal hearing or following the due^processof law is questioned as the same is arbitrary, illegal,^{contrarytothe} well-established legal principles apart from being violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under articles 14 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject Sy.No.590/11B of K.V.Palli Village. K.V.Palli Mandal, Annamayya District and pass such other order....”

¶63

in settled 2. It is the pleading of the petitioners that a person entitled to continue in such possession of immoveable property is and except in possession, without being dispossessed save accordance with law. Government Pleader furnished written 3. Learned Assistant instructions dated 21.09.2025 (forms part of record), which manifests that after enquiry the petitioners will be evicted^{byfollowingprocedure} notice under Sections 7 and 6 of the Andhra in due course, by issuing Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, duly affording reasonable time and fair opportunity to petitioners to contend their case.

¶64

4

¶65

In Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu,^ a three-Judge^Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing the Indian law on the

¶66

subject, observed as under:

¶67

“..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^outa trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can^doso 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. ”

¶68

In the case of Ram Ratan and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh^, question cropped up before Hon’ble Supreme Court, with regard to right of private defence of trespasser against^trueowner. 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:-

¶69

“In State of W.B. and others Vs Vishnunarayan and Associates (P) Ltd. and another, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 134,^{heldthatState} and its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others except where their actions are authorized by specific provisions of law.’’

¶70

In, H.B.Yogalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others^, 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^fromthe

¶71

property, relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

¶72

1 (2004)1 SCC 769 ^{1977) 1 SCC 188 ^ (2004) 13 SCC 518

¶73

"Otherwise also principles of natural justice demand^thatashow- 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."

¶74

"It is well settled that the law requires that the^{trueownershould} dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the^remedies under, the law."

¶75

In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of^India , the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the phrase no one shall be deprived of one’s life and liberty except procedure^{establishedbylaw} as employed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.^{Theprinciplesof} natural justice demands that the persons who are affected^shouldbe heard.

¶76

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).

¶77

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^{byfollowingdue} process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶78

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶79

shall stand closed.

¶80

1

¶81

RAO AlsiltANT //true copy// t section OFF'CER

¶82

4 air 1978 SC 25

¶83

To,