Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Arani Gopal vs The State Of Ap on 22 September, 2025
APHC010495372025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 25731/2025
Between:
1. ARANI GOPAL, O.LATE.A.SUBRAMANYAM, AGE EARS
OCCAGRICULTURE, R/O. D.NO.4-1815/2, DURGA NAGAR
COLONY, GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT,
A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522503. 2.
2. THE COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, O/O.
COLLECTORATE, CHITTOOR. 3.
3. THE JONIT COLLECTOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT,
O/O.COLLECTORATE, CHITTOOR.
4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER D P O, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT, KALAGATUR, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH
517002 5,
5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CHITTOOR
DIVISION, O/O. CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 6.
6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND
SANITATION (RWS S) DEPAIRTMENT, O/O.DISTRICT
COLLECTORATE, CHITTOOR. 7.
7. THE TAHSILDAR, GUDIPALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR
DISTRICT.
8. THE MANDAL PARISHAT DEVELOPMENT OFFIEER, MPDO
OFFICE, YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 9.
9. MADHAVARAM GRAM PANCHAYATH, REP BY ITS
SECRETARY, YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
10.
10. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, A.P.S.P.D.C. LTD., GANDHI
ROAD EXTENSION, CHITTOOR.
...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 topleased to issue WRIT OF WRIT OF
MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to
declare the action of the Respondents in interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the Petitioners property of an Extent of
2
Ac. 1.24 Cents situated in Survey Nos. 138/F/A of 69-Madhavaram
Village of Yadamari Mandal of Chittoor District by illegally encroaching
an extent of Ac.0.02 PERCENT cent out of Ac. 1.24 Cents and
digging borewell, laying underground pipe line and giving Power
connection to the same, without following due process of law as
illegal, arbitraiy, without authority, null and void, violation of principles
of natural justice and also contrary to Articles 14, of Constitution of
India and to direct the Respondents to remove the borewell and pipe
line dug in the subjeet property, and not to provide any power
conneetion to the said Borewell and eonsequently direet the
Respondents, not to interfer with the peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the Petitioner of his property of an Extent of Ac. 1.24
Cents situated in Survey Nos.l38/F/A of 69-Madhavaram Village of
Yadamari Mandal of Chittoor District without following due process of
law in the interest of justice and to pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. DEVALARAJU ANIL KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.25731 of 2025
ORDER:-
The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"...to issue WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to declare the action of the Respondents in interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner's property of an Extent of Ac.1.24 Cents situated in Survey Nos. 138/F/A of 69-Madhavaram Village of Yadamari Mandal of Chittoor District, by illegally encroaching an extent of Ac.0.02 ¾ cent out of Ac.1.24 Cents and digging borewell, laying underground pipe line and giving power connection to the same, without following due process of law as illegal, arbitrary, without authority, null and void, violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary to Articles 14, of Constitution of India and to direct the Respondents to remove the borewell and pipe line dug in the subject property, and not to provide any power connection to the said Borewell and consequently direct the Respondents, not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Petitioner of his property of an Extent of Ac.1.24 Cents situated in Survey Nos.138/F/A of 69- Madhavaram Village of Yadamari Mandal of Chittoor District without following due process of law in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders..."
2. It is the grievance of petitioner that the respondent authorities are highhandedly trying to dig borewell and lay underground pipe line in the petitioner's property, without following due process of law.
3. Sri M.Sudhir, learned counsel for respondent No.9 furnished written instructions dated 21.09.2025, addressed by the Secretary, Madhavaram Gram Panchayat, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District. The said written instructions indicate that land in Sy.No.138 to an extent of Ac.1.414 cents is classified as 'Gayalu", which is a Government poramboke land and the Gram Panchayat had laid a 4 borewell to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents for drinking water purpose to SC Community.
4. Sri Kota Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.10 orally submits that respondent No.10 has not received any application seeking power supply.
5. 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."
6. 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 1 (2004)1 SCC 769 2 (1977) 1 SCC 188 5 except where their actions are authorized by specific provisions of law."
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. 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).
3 (2004) 13 SCC 518 4 AIR 1978 SC 25 6
10. 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. Till such time, respondents are directed to maintain status quo as on today. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 22.09.2025 KBN