Disposed¶40

Bora Nageswara Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Apr 2025WP/5164/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court Amaravati; WP 5164 of 2023; writ of mandamus; dispossession without notice; Section 7 Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905; settled possession; due process of law; Article 300-A; Article 14; Article 226; Rame Gowda v. Varadappa Naidu; Tahsildhar Anakapalli; Bowlavada Gram Panchayat; sale agreement 2013; disposed of, no costs; IAs closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction that, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents shall not dispossess him except by due process of law; no costs; consequently, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. ¶40

Bora Nageswara Rao Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 4 and 5 can initiate steps to dispossess the petitioner from his residential plot without issuing a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 and without following due process of law. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

If the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with his possession and enjoyment; high-handed action dispossessing him would amount to depriving the petitioner in violation of the constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, besides violating Article 14.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Even assuming the petitioner's possession is illegal, he is required to be afforded an opportunity before appropriate action is taken; in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs., a person in settled possession and enjoyment of property cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law.

¶36

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by due process of law.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction) — Writ Petition No. 5164 of 2023, disposed of on 10.04.2025 by Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda. Petitioner Bora Nageswara Rao claimed ownership/possession of Residential Plot No. 73, H.No. 5-76/2, Adm. extent Ac.0-02 cents in Survey No. 17/2, Assessment No. 1265, RCC slabbed house, Riksha Colony, Ward-7, Anakapalli, said to have been purchased under a sale agreement in 2013, and complained that respondents 4 (Tahsildhar, Anakapalli Mandal) and 5 (Bowlavada Gram Panchayat) were initiating steps to dispossess him and remove structures without notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905. Held: if the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere, such high-handed action amounting to deprivation violating Article 300-A besides Article 14 of the Constitution; even assuming the possession to be illegal, an opportunity must first be afforded, and per the law declared by the Apex Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. (footnote citation printed as 2004 (1) see 769 [sic]), a person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. Direction: respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except by due process of law. Disposed of, no costs; pending IAs closed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5164 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bora Nageswara Rao, S/o Devudu, Hindu, Aged 47 years, Occ Business, Residing at Riksha Colony, Ward-7, Anakapalli, Bowluvada, Visakhapatnam District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary for Revenue Department, Amravati, Guntur District.

¶12

The District Collector, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalli Revenue Division, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

¶14

The Tahsildhar, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam^District.

¶15

The Bowlavada Gram Panchayat, Rep. by its Secretary, Bowlavada, Anakapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam.

¶16

Siddi Nagamani, W/o Manikyam, Hindu, Aged 65 years, R/o H.No. 8-63, RV Nagar, Nookambika Temple, Bowivada, Anakapalli, Visakhapatnam.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

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 Order, direction, proceedings or Writ more

¶19

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th and 5th respondents without following Section^{7ofAndhraPradesh} Land Encroachment Act, 1905 in initiating steps for dispossessing the petitioner from his Residential Plot no. 73 in H.No. 5-76/2 in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Survey No. 17/2, Assessment No. 1265 consisting of RCC slabbed House, Residing at Riksha Colony, Ward-7, Anakapalli, Bowluvada, Visakhapatnam District and for removal of the structures etc., therein as premeditated, illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and authority and violative of Principles of Natural Justice, violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, Ultra-vires his powers under the provisions^ofAndhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

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 no. 1 to 5 not to dispossess the petitioner from their Residential Plot no. 73 in H.No. 5-76/2 in an extent of Ac.0.02 cents in Survey No. 17/2 of land at Riksha Colony, Ward-7, Anakapalli, Bowluvada, Visakhapatnam District.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶23

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 no. 1 to 5 to issue proper notice and follow due process of law which is laid under section 7 of Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act 1905, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. GULIPALI SURAJ

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI N SRIHARI, SC FOR ZPP, MPP & GP

¶27

The Court made the following Order:

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 5164 OF 2023

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of 4**^ & 5*" respondent without following Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in initiating steps for dispossessing the petitioner from^{hisResidentialPlotNo.73} in H.No.5-76/2 in an extent of Ac.0-02 cents in Survey No. i7/2, Assessment No. 1265 consisting of RCC slabbed house. Residing at Rissha Colony, Ward-7, Anakapalli, Bowluvada, Visakhapatnam District^{andforremoalofthe} structures etc., therein as illegal and arbitrary.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner and possessor of the subject property having purchased the same under sale agreement in the year 2013 for valuable consideration. While so. the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioner from his property without issuing a notice under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act and without following due process of law and requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from their land without following due process^oflaw.

¶33

¶34

NV,J W.P.No.5164 of 2023

¶35

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue submits that, if the petitioner is in possession of the subject property, the respondents^{wouldfollowdue} process of law and requested to pass appropriate orders. 4. The only grievance of this petitioner is that, the^{petitionerassertedthat} he is in possession and enjoyment of the property.^{Asseenfromtherelief} claimed by this petitioner, it is clear that the respondents^{aretryingtointerfere} with the possession and enjoyment of the property of^{thispetitionerandtrying} to dispossess from the subject property. If the petitioner^{isinpossessionand} enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not^{entitledtointerferewith} the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner, as^{suchhighhandedactionof} the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioner violating constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A^{oftheConstitutionofIndia,} besides violation of Article 14 of the Constitution^ofIndia.

¶36

Even assuming for a moment that this petitioner’s possession^isillegal, still, the petitioner is required to be afforded an opportunity before^taking appropriate action and in view of the law declared^{bytheApexCourt} in “Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.^ when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment^{oftheproperty,he} cannot be dispossessed, without following due process^oflaw.

¶37

' 2004 (1) see 769

¶38

NV,J W.P.No.5164 of 2023

¶39

Therefore, if the petitioner is in possession of the^{subjectproperty,the} the respondents are directed not to dispossess the^{petitionerfromthesubject} property, except by due process of law. No costs.

¶40