Gurram Nooka Raju, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Gurram Nooka Raju, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the petitioners were held not entitled to any relief; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' attempt to dispossess the petitioners of lands in R.S.No.116, Thadi Village, Parawada Mandal, without notice, enquiry or order, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution, warranting a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioners' possession. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

On careful examination, the signatures of the same revenue officer across all seven adangal copies filed by the petitioners were dissimilar to the naked eye; this created a suspicion in the Court's mind which the petitioners were unable to rebut, and apart from the adangal no other document was filed to establish possession over the property.

Key takeaways

Adjudication of disputed possession is not desirable in exercise of the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; a petitioner asserting a good and valid case on possession must pursue the remedy before a civil court rather than in the writ petition.ratio¶57
Since the petitioners were unable to establish prima facie possession over the writ schedule property, the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even a trespasser should be evicted only under due process of law was held inapplicable to this case, and the petitioners were accordingly held not entitled to any relief.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.), W.P. No. 13380 of 2023, decided 28.04.2026: Four petitioners claiming occupation of extents of Ac.5-00, Ac.3-00, Ac.3-00 and Ac.5-00 cents in R.S.No.116 of Thadi Village, Parawada Mandal, Anakapalli (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District - stated to be hill-slope land on which they raised a cashew nut tope about 35 years ago and on whose yield they sustain their livelihood - sought a writ of mandamus declaring the respondents' attempt to dispossess them without notice, enquiry or order illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution. The Tahsildar countered that Sy.No.116 (584.99 cents) is Poramboke with no assignment; advance possession of Ac.500 cents was handed to APIIC under G.O.Rt.No.1417 (Revenue (Assgn.II)) dated 02.12.2019; APIIC reported receipt of Ac.70.50 cents in four spells (06.02.2006 to 23.07.2020) and allotment of Ac.10.00 cents in Sy.No.116P to Visakha Pharmacity Limited (formerly Ramky Pharma City (India) Ltd.) on a 33-year lease, sale deed registered 26.10.2022 vide document No.6638/2022. HELD: (i) the seven adangal copies bore dissimilar signatures of the same revenue officer visible to the naked eye; the suspicion was not rebutted and no other document proved possession; (ii) possession disputes ought not to be adjudicated under Article 226, the civil court being the proper forum; (iii) as prima facie possession was not established, the Apex Court principle that even a trespasser must be evicted only by due process of law did not apply. Writ petition dismissed; no costs; interlocutory applications closed.

Reserved o n : 21.04.2026 Pronounce d on : 28.04.2026 Uploaded o n : 30.04.2026

APHC010253292023

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

[3330]

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AP R IL TW O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 13380/2023

BETWEEN:

GURRAM NOOKA RAJU, S/o. LATE CHINNAIAH, AGED- 63 YEARS, R/o. D.No.1-74, THADI VILLAGE, P ARAWADA MANDAL, VIS A KHAPATNAM (ANAKAPALLI) DIST R ICT.

PITHANA NEEL A KANTA RAO, S/o. LATE KANNAIA H , AGED- 56 YEARS, R/o. D.No.1-74, PHARAMA CITY COLONY, KOTHAPALEM STREET, AGANAMPUDI POST, G AJUWAKA MANDAL, VIS A KHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

GURRAM SAT T I BABU, S/o. NOOKA RAJU, AGED- 39 YEARS, R/o. D.No.1-75, THADI VILLAGE, PARAWAD A MANDAL, VISAKHAPATN A M (ANAKAPALLI) DISTRICT.

SMT. GANGI R EDDLA PARAMESWARI, W/o VENKATA RAMANA, AGE D - 55 YEARS, R/o. PHARAMA CIT Y COLONY, LEMARTHY A G RAHARAM STREET, AGANAMP U DI POST, GAJUWAKA M A NDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRIC T .

...PETITIONER(S)

2

AND

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AIIIARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM) DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI.

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ANAKAPALLE DIVISION, ANAKAPALLI (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM) DISTRICT.

THE TAHSILDAR, PARAWADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI (ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM) DISTRICT.

ANDHRA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE CORPORATION LIMITED APIIC, SPECIAL PROJECT ZONE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY ZONAL MANAGER (AM), ONE STOP SERVICE CENTRE, APSEZ, ATCHUTAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM,

VISAKHA PHARMACITY LIMITED, (FORMERLY M/S RAMKY PHARMA CITY (INDIA) LTD.) COMMERCIAL HUB, ROAD NO. 13, ADMIN BLOCK, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PHARMA CITY, PARAWADA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT - 531 019. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. PAKANATI VENKATA RAGHAVA REDDY, S/O PAKANTI PITCHI REDDY OCC DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, VISAKHA PHARMACITY LIMITED, R/O D.NO.4-156/2, 113 THALLURU, NEAR POST OFFICE, PHIRANGIPURAM (MANDAL). GUNTUR (DISTRICT), ANDHRA PRADESH - 522 529. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DT.04.11.2025 IN I.A.NO.04 OF 2025.

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 appropriate writ, order or direction

3

more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed and illegal action on the part of the respondents in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their possession and enjoyment of their respective properties situated in an extent of Ac.5-00 cents, Ac.3-00 cents, Ac.3-00 cents, and Ac.5-00 cents covered by R.S.No.116 of Thadi Village, Parawada Mandal, Anakapalli (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District, without issuing any notice, without conducting any enquiry and without passing any order as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in any manner including their dispossession from the subject properties in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1.K JYOTHI PRASAD

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR REVENUE

2.SANTHI CHANDRA SC For APIIC

3.N NAVEEN KUMAR

The Court made the following:

4

ORDER:

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

“to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the high handed and illegal action on the part of the respondents in attempting to dispossess the petitioners from their possession and enjoyment of their respective properties situated in an extent of Ac.5-00 cents, Ac.3.00 cents, Ac.3.00 cents, and Ac.5-00 cents covered by R.S.No.116 of Thadi Village, Parawada Mandal, Anakapalli (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District, without issuing any notice, without conducting any enquiry and without passing any order as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in any manner including their dispossession from the subject properties in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders….”

Precisely, the facts that are stated in the affidavit filed in support

of the Writ Petition are that the land in R.S.No.116 situated at Thadi village, Parawada Mandal, Anakapally (Erstwhile Visakhapatnam) District, the ancestors of the petitioners have encroached upon the land

to an extent of Ac.5-00 cents, Ac.3-00 cents, Ac.3-00 cents, and Ac.5.00 cents about 35 years ago and the same is in occupation of the petitioners and the said land is in hill slope and the petitioners herein

5

raised cashew nut tope in the land, basing on the yield they sustain their livelihood. During the month of March, 2023, the staff of 5^th respondent i.e. Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited (APIIC), after measuring the land stated that they have purchased the land. However, on the protest of the petitioners, the 5^th respondent is not able to take possession of the above said survey number land. And it is settled proposition of law that even a trespasser should be evicted under due procedure of law. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in any manner including their dispossession and to declare the action of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, malafide and against the principles of natural justice, besides violation of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and prayed not to dispossess the petitioners from the aforesaid survey number land. In order to substantiate their possession, the petitioners herein filed land tax receipts consisting 7 in number.

The 4^th respondent-Tahsildar filed his counter and vacate stay petition, wherein it is stated that the land in Survey No.116 consists of 584.99 cents, is classified as Poramboke and all the revenue records show that no assignment was granted in Sy.No.116 of Thadi village of Parawada Mandal. The 5^th respondent-APIIC made a representation

6

for alienation of land. In view of the urgency, at the relevant point of time, the District Collector and Magistrate on obtaining instructions from the CCLA, A.P. Vijayawada, and on the orders of the Government of A.P. Amaravati, vide G.O.Rt.No.1417 Revenue (Assgn.II) Department Dt.02.12.2019 advance possession has been handed over to the 5^th respondents and the Tahsildar has not noticed any reliable encroachments and the Writ Petitioners might have been encroached upon the subject land after 2020 i.e., after handing over of Ac.500 cents in Sy.No.116 of Tadi village to APIIC and also stated that the receipts filed by the petitioners are highly questionable and the petitioners are in possession for about 25 years is a baseless and contrary to the facts. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

The 5^th respondent-APIIC filed its counter affidavit stating that to an extent of Ac.70.50 cents were handed over and possession was given to the APIIC in four spells i.e. an extent of Ac.6.00 cents on 06.02.2006, an extent of Ac.3.00 cents on 19.07.2007, an extent of 11.50 cents on 21.04.2016 and an extent of 50.00 cents on 23.07.2020, out of the total extent of Ac.584.99 cents, in order to develop Industrial Park, on the requisition made to the Government for alienation of the land.

Subsequent to the receipt of the possession by the APIIC, the 6^th respondent-M/s.Visakha Pharmacity (Ramky) has requested APIIC to

7

handover the possession of Ac.50.00 cents in Survey No.116P of Thada village of Parawada Mandal, for the purpose of “Secured Land Fill” for the disposal of hazardous waste, as the existing land fill has been completely exhausted. Accordingly, the request of the 6^th respondent has been considered and they have allotted an extent of Ac.10.00 cents covered by Sy.No.116P on lease basis for 33 years and the APIIC registered the sale deed on 26.10.2022 vide document No.6638/2022 and denied all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the entire writ petition is filed based on concocted facts. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

And the 6^th respondent has also filed counter affidavit more or less on the same contentions raised by the 4^th and 5^th respondents.

However, the petitioners have filed their reply affidavit denying all the counter averments. And the photographs filed along with the writ petition clearly indicates that the cashew nuts growing in the subject land and visited the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and stated that they should not be dispossessed without following due process of law.

Heard Sri K. Jyoti Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri Gurram Rama Chandra Rao, learned counsel for

8

respondent No.5 and Sri N. Naveen Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is settled proposition of law that even a trespasser should drive home by following due process of law and cannot be dispossessed forcibly, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in numerous judgments. The writ petitioners, who states that who are in possession have to affirmatively prove their possession, presumptions and probabilities cannot be substituted for evidence. The petitioners herein filed adangal copies to establish their possession of the property. On careful examination of the adangal, the signatures are dissimilar of the same revenue officer in all the seven (7) adangal copies to the naked eye. It gives a suspicion in the Court mind, except this document no other documents were filed by the petitioners to establish possession over the property. And the petitioners are unable to rebut the suspicion surrounding the document i.e. adangal.

And in the counter filed by the revenue department, it is stated that the signature on the adangals are fabricated for the purpose of this case. And it further stated that the land was alienated to APIIC and the APIIC is in possession of the property. In the counter filed by the APIIC, it is stated that they have purchased the property and they are in the possession of the property. When the petitioners assert that they

9

are in long possession of the property that they have to satisfy their possession in continuity by placing some evidence to the Court. The writ petitioners are unable to establish the same. If the petitioners think that they have good and valid case, it is before any civil court, that they may avail in that forum not in this writ petition, it will not be desirable for this Court to adjudicate regarding the possession in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In view of the above discussion, as the petitioners are unable to establish prima facie possession over the writ petition scheduled property, the proposition that enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments that even trespasser should be evicted under due process of law is not applicable in the present scenario, accordingly petitioners are not entitled for any relief, therefore the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 28.04.2026

Harin

10

16

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

W.P.No. 13380 OF 2023

Date: 28-03-2026

Harin