Vaddarapu Yamini Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

VADDARAPU YAMINI, W/o V, SURESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/o D.No. 1/87, SANTHA KOWUR VILLAGE, THONDUR MANDAL, KADAPA, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT AT KADAPA

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, THONDUR MANDAL, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT

¶16

KANCHARLA CHINNA GANGI REDDY, S/o. K. SUBBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/o. D.NO.226, SANTHA KOWUR VILLAGE, THONDUR MANDAL, KADAPA, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT

¶17

GAJJALA RAMA CHANDRA REDDY, S/o. G. BALA GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/o D.NO. 1-94, SANTHA KOWUR VILLAGE, THONDUR MANDAL, KADAPA, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT

¶18

2

¶19

DASARI LAKSHMI NARAYANA REDDY, S/o. D. GANGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/o. D.No. 1- 33-1, SANTHA KOWUR VILLAGE, THONDUR MANDAL, KADAPA, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT

¶20

DASARI GANGAYYA, S/o. D. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/o. D.No. 1/63, SANTHA KOVVUR VILLAGE, THONDUR MANDAL, KADAPA, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶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 be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No. 3 in highhandedly interfering and threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of an extent of Ac. 10.46 cents, situated in Sy.No.210 of Santha Kowur Village, Thondur Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District, on the ascendancy of the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein, 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 wellestablished legal principles apart from being violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under articles 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents, not to interfere in petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of an extent of Ac. 10.46 cents, situated in Sy.No.210 of Santha Kowur Village, Thondur Mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa District and pass such other order or orders.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

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

¶31

“… pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No.3 in highhandedly interfering and the threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of an extent of Ac.10.46 cents, situated in Sy.No.210 of Santha Kovvur Village, Thondur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, on the ascendancy of the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein, 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, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently district the Respondents, not to interfere in petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of an extent of Ac.10.46 cents, situated in Sy.No.210 of Santha Kovvur Village, Thondur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District and pass such other or further orders..……”

¶32

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.

¶33

4

¶34

In Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu,¹ a three-Judge Bench

¶35

of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while discussing the Indian law on the subject, observed as under:

¶36

“..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.”

¶37

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:-

¶38

“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.”

¶39

In, H.B.Yogalaya Vs. State of U.P. and others³ , the Hon’ble

¶40

Apex Court held that without any show cause notice or hearing, neither

¶41

1 (2004)1 SCC 769

¶42

2 ( 1977) 1 SCC 188

¶43

3 (2004) 13 SCC 518

¶44

5

¶45

demolition can take place nor a person may be dispossessed from the

¶46

property, relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

¶47

"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."

¶48

"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."

¶49

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.

¶50

In Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.,⁵ it was held that the eviction from pavements and slums will lead to deprivation of their livelihood and consequently to the deprivation of the right to life. It was also held that pavement dwellers and slum dwellers are using pavements and other public properties for an unauthorised purpose; that opportunity of hearing cannot be denied to them on ground that they are trespassers; trespass is a tort and that but, even the law of torts requires that though a trespasser may be evicted

¶51

4 AIR 1978 SC 25

¶52

5 1985 (3) SCC 545

¶53

6

¶54

forcibly, the force used must be no greater than what is reasonable and appropriate to the occasion and, what is even more important, the trespasser should be asked and given a reasonable opportunity to depart before force is used to expel.

¶55

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).

¶56

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 by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶57

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶58

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 08.09.2025

Harin

7

93