Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Andraju Peddiraju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 September, 2025
APHC010526072025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [0]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 27087 of 2025
Between:
1. ANDRAJU PEDDIRAJU, S/O. VENKATESWARLU, AGE-58
YEARS, R/O . NEAR RAMALAYAM, KALIPATNAM WEST
VILLAGE, MOGALTHUR MANDAL WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. MOKA CHANDRAYYA, S/O. MOKA KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED
ABOUT 66 YEARS, D.NO. 1-85, RAMALAYAM STREET,
PALLIPALEM KALIPATNAM, KALIPATNAM, MOGALTHUR
WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT,
ELURU, ANDHRA PRADESH.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, MOGALTHUR MANDAL,WEST GODAVARI
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH
...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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3
in interfering with the petitioners possession of the schedule property
as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the said respondents
not to interfere with the petitioners peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the schedule land admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in R.S.No.255/4 of
2
Kalipatnam West Village Mogalthur Mandal, West Godavari District,
except in accordance with due process of law.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SRIMAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
3
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"... to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the Respondents 2 and 3 in interfering with the petitioner‟s possession of the schedule property as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently direct the said respondents not to interfere with the petitioner‟s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule land admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in R.S.No.255/4 of Kalipatnam West Village, Mogalthur Mandal, West Godavari District, except in accordance with due process of law and pass such other order or orders ...."
2. It is the pleading of the petitioners 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.
3. 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:
"..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."1
(2004)1 SCC 769 4
4. 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:-
"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."
5. 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:
"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."
"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."
6. In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the phrase „no one shall be deprived 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 5 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.
7. 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).
8. 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.
As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 26.09.2025 siva 6 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.27087 of 2025 Date: 26.09.2025 siva