Kanta Venkata Subbaiah v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Feb 2026WP/29388/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Demolition without notice; road expansion; due process of law; peaceful possession; writ of mandamus; Article 226; Articles 14, 19, 21, 300-A; unlawful dispossession; natural justice; show cause notice; Rame Gowda; Maneka Gandhi; H.B. Yogalaya; Ram Ratan; Vishnunarayan; Rangasamudram Village; Porumamilla Mandal; YSR Kadapa; Sy.No.1138; Gram Panchayat taxes; compound wall demolished; sale deed 01.09.1989 Doc No.935/1980; no counter affidavit; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; WRIT PETITION No.29388 of 2025; Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property except by following due process of law; no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. ¶¶60

Kanta Venkata Subbaiah Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent authorities may demolish the petitioners' house/building (D.Nos. 10/372 and 10/375, Sy.No.1138, Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District) and dispossess the petitioners for road expansion without giving any notice and without acquiring the property by following due process of law.

¶¶40

Court's answer

Petitioners in peaceful possession should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law, as held in Rame Gowda's case.

¶¶59

Ratio / Principle

Respondents are directed not to interfere with the petitioners' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property except by following due process of law; Writ Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶¶60

Key takeaways

Principles of natural justice require that persons affected be heard (invoked in the context of Article 21 procedure established by law).ratio¶¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao J., single judge) disposed of Writ Petition No.29388 of 2025 on 11.02.2026. Petitioners, residing in a house built on land purchased by their father in 1989 under Document No.935/1980 in Sy.No.1138, Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, sought a Writ of Mandamus against attempted demolition of their house (D.Nos. 10/372 and 10/375, extent 181.5 sq. yards) for road expansion without notice and without acquisition through due process, alleging violation of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A. Respondents filed no counter; their written instructions admitted that part of the existing building had already been demolished (compound wall removed). Relying principally on Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu (2004) 1 SCC 769, and citing Ram Ratan v. State of U.P. (1977) 1 SCC 188, State of W.B. v. Vishnunarayan & Associates (2002) 4 SCC 134, H.B. Yogalaya v. State of U.P. (2004) 13 SCC 518 and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 25, the Court held that petitioners in peaceful possession should not be dispossessed except in accordance with law, and disposed of the Writ Petition directing respondents not to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment except by following due process of law. No order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

¶1

APHC010569222025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3330]

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION No.29388 of 2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

KANTA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, S/O.LATE SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.6/345-A, MAIN ROAD, PORUMAMILLA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶11

B.N.G. NAGRENDRA KUMARI,, S/O.B.N.G.NAGASUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCCRHOUSEWIFE, R/O.D.NO.21/42-B, MYDUKKUR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶12

...PETITIONER(S)

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF AP, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 3.

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.

¶17

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPARTMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA.

¶18

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA.

¶19

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT CIRCLE, KADAPA.

¶20

THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA. 8..

¶21

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BADVEL REVENUE DIVISIONAL, BADVEL. 9.

¶22

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS KADAPA DIVISION, KADAPA

¶23

THE TAHSILDHAR, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, PORUMAMILLA.

¶24

¶25

THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PORUMAMILLA MANDAL, PORUMAMILLA.

¶26

THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, BADVEL SUB-DIVISION, BADVEL. 13.

¶27

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, PORUMAMILLA SECTION, PORUMAMILLA. ...RESPONDENT(S):

¶28

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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ It is, therefore, prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions on part of the respondents in trying to demolish the House and building at D.No. 10/372 and 10/375 in land in an extent of 181.5 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.l 138, 10TH Ward, Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, stating that the same is required for expansion of the road, without giving any notice and without acquiring the same by following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power apart from being violative of the Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment including any attempts of demolition of House and building at D.No. 10/372 and 10/375 in land in an extent of 181.5 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.l 138, 10TH Ward, Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶30

1.B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶33

2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶34

3.GP FOR REVENUE

¶35

4.Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

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

¶40

"…..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ, It is, therefore, prayed that this Honble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the actions on part of the respondents in trying to demolish the House and building at D.No. 10/372 and 10/375 in land in an extent of 181.5 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.l 138, 10TH Ward, Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, stating that the same is required for expansion of the road, without giving any notice and without acquiring the same by following due process of law, as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power apart from being violative of the Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to petitioners under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere with petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment including any attempts of demolition of House and building at D.No. 10/372 and 10/375 in land in an extent of 181.5 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.l 138, 10^th Ward, Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and pass such other orders……."

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the land of an extent of 0.03¾ cents in Sy.No.1138 was purchased by the father of the petitioners situated at Rangasamudram Village, Porumamilla Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, vide registered sale deed dated 01.09.1989 vide document No.935/1980 for construction of house and the father of the petitioners herein has constructed a house in the aforesaid survey number and the petitioners having been residing in the said house since the construction of the house and they are paying

¶42

¶43

taxes to the Gram Panchayat and the respondent-authorities have tried to demolish the house of the petitioners for expansion of the road, however, the petitioners restrained the respondents from under razing of the stature. Despite the same, the respondent authorities have demolished the compound wall of the writ petitioners? house. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents not to demolish the house in the aforesaid survey number without following due procedure of law.

¶44

The respondents have not filed counter affidavit. That the written instruction indicates that part of existing building is demolished in Sy.No.1138 to an extent of 181.5 square yards. This Court decided to dispose of the present Writ Petition as the counter is not required in the present case and the learned Assistant Government also consented for disposal of the Writ Petition, as the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondents not to demolish the property of the writ petitioners except without following the due process of law.

¶45

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:

¶46

<..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

¶47

1 (2004)1 SCC 769

¶48

¶49

owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law.=

¶50

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:-

¶51

<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.=

¶52

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

¶53

"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."

¶54

"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."

¶55

2 ( 1977) 1 SCC 188

¶56

3 (2004) 13 SCC 518

¶57

¶58

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.

¶59

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law, as held in Rame Gowda’s case (supra-1).

¶60

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

¶61

As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶62

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶63

Date: 11.02.2026

¶64

siva

¶65