C Venkata Ramana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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 topleased to issue a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing/proceeding to dispossess the petitioner from the lands under his possession upto an extent of Ac. 0.35 cents in Sy.No.502/3, Ac. 0.64 cents in Sy.No.502/4, Ac. 0.05

¶19

Page 2 of 6

¶20

cents in Sy.No.502/5, Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy.No.502/6, Ac. 0.42 cents in Sy.No.502/10 1B, Kuntrapakam Village accounts, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District without issuance of any notice is as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, perverse, unfair, biased, preposterous, whimsical, capricious, unconscionable, unconstitutional besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and Fair-play and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to follow due process of law as envisaged under the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905.and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶22

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 dispossess the petitioner from his lands upto an extent of Ac. 0.35 cents in Sy.No.502/3, Ac. 0.64 cents in Sy.No.502/4, Ac. 0.05 cents in Sy.No.502/5, Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy.No.502/6, Ac. 0.42 cents in Sy.No.502/10 1B, Kuntrapakam Village accounts, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District till consideration of the application vide application No.RMU012004073676 dated 25.02.2020, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass

¶23

IA 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 may be pleased to grant leave to respondent No.4 to file counter in the above writ petition and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.VMR LEGAL

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

The Court made the following:

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.9586 of 2023

¶33

ORDER:-

¶34

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

¶35

“…issue a writ more particularly in the form of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in proposing/proceeding to dispossess the petitioner from the lands under his possession upto an extent of Ac. 0.35 cents in Sy.No.502/3, Ac. 0.64 cents in Sy.No.502/4, Ac. 0.05 cents in Sy.No.502/5, Ac. 0.03 cents in Sy.No.502/6, Ac. 0.42 cents in Sy.No.502/10 1B, Kuntrapakam Village accounts, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Tirupathi District without issuance of any notice is as per se illegal, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational, perverse, unfair, biased, preposterous, whimsical, capricious, unconscionable, unconstitutional besides being violative of Principles of Natural Justice besides being opposed to the very spirit and object of Justice and Fair-play and Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to follow due process of law as envisaged under the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905.and to pass …”

¶36

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.

¶37

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:

¶38

“..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

¶39

1 (2004)1 SCC 769

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

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.”

¶42

4. In the case of Ram Ratan and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh² ,

¶43

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:-

¶44

“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.”

¶45

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

¶46

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:

¶47

"Otherwise also principles of natural justice demand that a show-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."

¶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

2 ( 1977) 1 SCC 188

¶50

3 (2004) 13 SCC 518

¶51

Page 5 of 6

¶52

In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India⁴ , the

¶53

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.

¶54

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).

¶55

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property, except by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶56

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

¶57

___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶58

Date: 03.11.2025

¶59

TVN

¶60