Bojja Talupulamma v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Mar 2025WP/7426/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Settled possession; dispossession without due process impermissible even against alleged encroachment; demolition of shed by revenue and panchayat authorities with police aid; Article 226 writ; Articles 14, 21 and 300-A; Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, 2004 (1) SCC 769 relied on; patta DR.No.615/99 M dated 26.03.1990; Ac.0.02 cents, Sy.No.47-2, Boduvalasa Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalle; writ of mandamus; writ petition disposed without costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall not dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except by following due process of law; miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed; no order as to costs. ¶¶64

Bojja Talupulamma Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents could demolish the petitioner's shed and dispossess her from the subject land (Ac.0.02 cents, Sy.No.47-2, Boduvalasa Village) without following due process of law, even on the plea that she had encroached upon vacant land.

¶¶60

Court's answer

When a petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with that possession and enjoyment; such high-handed action would amount to depriving the petitioner's constitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, besides violating Article 14.

¶¶63

Ratio / Principle

Even assuming for a moment that the petitioner's possession is illegal, she is required to be afforded an opportunity before any 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.

¶¶63

Key takeaways

Operative direction: the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property except by following due process of law.ratio¶¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh HC (Single Judge: Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda) — W.P. No.7426 of 2025 (decided 20.03.2025): Petitioner claimed Ac.0.02 cents in Sy.No.47-2, Boduvalasa Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalle District, under a patta granted to her grandfather (DR.No.615/99 M, dt.26.03.1990). On 19.03.2025 respondents demolished her shed with police aid without notice and sought to dispossess her, contending the vacant land stood encroached and the site had been handed to the gram panchayat for school and village-community use. Held, disposing of the writ petition without costs: a person in settled possession and enjoyment of property cannot be dispossessed except by due process of law; high-handed interference deprives the constitutional right under Article 300-A and violates Article 14; even assuming possession to be illegal, an opportunity must precede coercive action, relying on Rame Gowda (dead) by L.Rs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by L.Rs., 2004 (1) SCC 769. Respondents directed not to dispossess the petitioner except by due process of law.

¶1

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

¶2

AMARAVAJ^V^I^^

¶3

¶4

THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE .

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA ^ WRIT PETITION NO: 7426 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Bojja Talupulamma, W/o.Bojja Suryanarayana, Aged about 44 Years , Occ Housewife R/o H.No.2-44, Boduvalasa Village Sabbavaram Mandai, Anakapalle District

¶10

...PETITIONER ^

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat building, Velagapudi, Guntur District.

¶13

The Collector and District Magistrate, Anakapalle^District

¶14

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Anakapalle District

¶15

The Tahsildar, Sabbavaram Mandai Anakapalle district.

¶16

The Village Revenue Officer, Boduvalasa Village, Sabbavaram Mandai, Anakapalle District.

¶17

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,^Guntur District.

¶18

The District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District. 8. The Gram Panchayat, Rep. by Panchayat Secretary, Boduvalasa Village, Sabbavaram Mandai^ Anakapalle District.

¶19

Nebarthi SrinivasaRao, S/o.Nebarthi AppaRao, Aged about³⁸ years. Occ. Sarpanch Boduvalasa Village, Sabbavaram Mandai, Anakapalle District.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

¶22

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may *' I ^ if^ ^ ^ iSSIJ0 an appropriate writ, direction order, or orders, particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in demolishing the Petitioners Shed and trying to dispos sess the Petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.0.02 cents situated at Sy.No.47-2 of Boduvalasa Village, Sabbavaram Mandal Anakapalle District as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to not interfere with the petitioners possession over the land ad measuring Ac.0.02 cents situated at Sy.No.47-2 of Boduvalasa Village, Sab: bavaram Mandal Anakapalle 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 peaceful possession of the petitioner’s land admeasuring Ac.0.02 cents situated at Sy.No.47-2 of Boduvalasa Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalle District. /

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KALLA GUNA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR REVENUE

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ &

¶27

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI Y. KOTESWARA RAO, SC FOR

¶29

ZPP, MPP & GAM PANCHAYAT

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent No.9;™ The Court made the following: ORDER

tSiikiL

APHC010145592025

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

¶35

[0]

¶36

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶37

PRESENT

¶38

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶39

WRIT PETITION NO: 7426/2025

Between:

Bojja Talupulamma

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

¶45

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶46

1.KALLAGUNASEKHAR

¶47

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶48

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶49

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶50

The Court made the following:

¶51

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶52

WRIT PETITION No.7426 OF 2025

¶53

ORDER:-

¶54

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the^{ConstitutionoftheIndia}

¶55

seeking the following relief;-

¶56

“may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction^orderor orders particularly in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus^declaringthe action of the Respondents in demolishing the Petitioners^Shedand trying to dispossess the Petitioner from the land admeasuring Ac.0.02 cents situated at Sy.No.472 of Boduvalasa Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalle District as illegal,^{arbitrary,contrary} to principles of natural justice and violative of Article^14,21and300- A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to not interfere with the petitioners possession^overthe land ad measuring Ac.0.02 cents situated at Sy.No.472 of Boduvalasa Village, Sabbavaram Mandal, Anakapalle District^and pass such..."

¶57

is the 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the petitioner^herein absolute owner and possessor of the land admeasuring to an extent of Ac.0.02 cents situated at Sy.No.47-2 of Boduvalasa^{Village,Sabbavaram} Mandal, Anakapalle District. The said land was granted^{bywayofpattatohis} grandfather namely Bojja Taatalu vide proceedings DR.No.615/99 M, dated 26.03.1990. Since then, the petitioner’s family^hasbeen in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. On 01.03.2025,^{therespondents} came to the subject land along with men and JCB and proclaimed^thatthey shall demolish the shed and evict the petitioner. Subsequently,^{thepetitioner} approached Sabbavaram Police Station and submitted^{awrittencomplaintto} the Station House Officer, Sabbavaram PS, but no FIR^{hasbeenregisteredby} the police. ^

¶58

While things stood thus, on 19.03.2025, the respondents came^to the subject land along with men, JCB and police for demolishing^theshedand dispossessing the petitioner. Though the petitioner objected to the said legal action, the respondents have demolished the shed with the aid of police without issuing any notice and are trying to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land. Hence, the writ petition.

¶59

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents.

¶60

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, without touching the merits of the case, requested this Court to issue a direction to the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property without following due process of law.

¶61

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for the respondents furnished on record the written instructions, wherein it is stated that the vacant land Ac.0.02 cents was encroached by the petitioner. Hence, the small shed was removed on 19.03.2025 with the help of the police and handed over to panchayat for protection and for the use of the school and village community. He further submits that if the respondents intend to dispossess the petitioner from the subject land, they would follow due process^oflaw.

¶62

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government pleader for the respondents, it is settled propositiorr-of law that when the petitioner is in settled possession and

¶63

enjoyment of the property, the respondents are not entitled to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner and such highhanded action of the respondents would amount to depriving the petitioner’s vietetfngconstitutional right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, besides violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even assuming for a moment that this petitioner’s possession is illegal, still, the petitioner is required to be afforded an opportunity before taking appropriate action and in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in “RameGowda (dead) by L.Rs. V. M.Varadappa Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs.\ when the petitioner is in settled possession and enjoyment of the property, he cannot be dispossessed, without following due process of law. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject property, except by following due process of law.

¶64