Chandra Interiors, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

CHANDRA INTERIORS,, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, K. MUNI BHASKAR, S/O. K. BALAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O. 1-53, HARIJANA WADA, KOTRAMANGALAM, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶11

SRI SAIRAM INTERIORS AND POP DEALERS,, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, M. CHANDRASEKHAR, S/O. M. MUNIRAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. PROPRIETORSHIP, RIO. THIRUCHANURU VILLAGE, TIURPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, (REVENUE) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT517501

¶16

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUPATI REVENUE DIVISION, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR, TIRUPATI RURAL MANDAL, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.-517501

¶19

TIRUPATI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN, AIR BYPASS ROAD, ANNAMAIAH CIRCLE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT-517501

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to demolish the petitioners small scale Industry situated in Sy.No. 458 to the total extent of 778 Sq. Meters situated in Tiruchanuru village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District under the guise of widening the CC Road without issuing any notice, without initiating any land acquisition proceedings, without paying the compensation is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demolish the petitioners industry situated in Sy.No. 458 to the total extent of 778 Sq. Meters situated in Tiruchanuru village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District except by following due process of law

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 not to demolish the petitioners industry situated in Sy.No. 458 to the total extent of 778 Sq. Meters situated in Tiruchanuru village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District except by following due process of law, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶25

1.NAVULURU KRISHNA SAI

¶26

Page 3 of 5

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

2.Karri kalyan Durga Prasad SC FOR TUDA

¶30

The Court made the following order :

¶31

Heard Sri N. Krishna Sai, learned counsel for the petitioners; Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri K.K.Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for respondent No.5.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.4 is attempting to demolish the petitioners’ small-scale industry situated in an extent of 778 square meters, Survey No.458-P, in Tiruchanuru Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, without following due process of law.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner No.2 acquired the subject land under two possessory-cum-agreements of sale, in the years 2021 and 2022, after paying the entire sale consideration. Originally, an extent of Ac.3-00 cents in Survey No.458-P situated in Tiruchanuru Village belonged to one Anasuyamma, who acquired the same by way of Ryotwari Grant. After purchase, the land was converted from agricultural land to nonagricultural land. Petitioner No.2 leased out a certain extent of land to Petitioner No.1. Thereafter, the petitioners established a small-scale industry and have been manufacturing non-metallic mineral products and providing employment. Respondents 4 and 5, under the guise of widening of CC road in Tiruchanuru Village, without issuing any notice, are attempting to dispossess the petitioners.

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on the instructions of the Tahsildar, would submit that an extent of Ac.149.25 cents in Survey No.458 is classified as River Poramboke (Swarna Mukhi River) in the village accounts of Tiruchanur Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal. The petitioners encroached upon the Government Land (River Poramboke). Hence, Form-VII notices under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Encroachment Act, 1905 were duly issued vide reference A/39/2026, dated 22.07.2026, to all the concerned persons. In fact, notice was also issued to petitioner No.2. The land is also included in Section 22-A(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that respondent No.4 will follow due procedure.

¶36

Sri K.K. Durga Prasad, learned standing counsel for TUDA, on instructions would submit that the proposed 30.00 meters master plan road from survey Nos.452 to 359, is passing through survey Nos.458, 457 and 377, Tiruchanoor Village. He would submit that some of the enjoyers objected, and objections will be duly considered. If any private land is affected during implementation of the master plan road, compensation/TDR will be awarded.

¶37

Thus, the material and photographs filed along with the writ petition would disclose running of an industry in the aforementioned property. However, as per the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioners have encroached upon Government land. It is a settled principle of law that even an encroacher is entitled to notice. In Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu¹ , the Hon‟ble Apex Court held thus:

¶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

¶39

1 (2004) 1 SCC 769

¶40

Page 5 of 5

¶41

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; he cannot take the law in his own hands and evict the trespasser or interfere with his possession. The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking the law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner (of course subject to the law of limitation), if the latter has dispossessed the prior possessor by use of force … …”

¶42

Given the above facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind the expression of the Hon’ble Apex Court, without going into the disputed questions of facts and merits of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel on either side, directing respondents 4 and 5 not to demolish the petitioners’ small scale industry situated in an extent of 778 square meters, in Survey No.458-P, in Tiruchanuru Village, Tirupati Rural Mandal, Tirupati District, without following due process of law. No costs.

¶43

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

¶44

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶45

Date: 10.09.2026 IKN

Chandra Interiors, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Interiors, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases