[ad_1]
Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Bathinasathibabu Sathiraju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 11 August, 2025
APHC010238022025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.
N 13036/2025
BETWEEN:
1. BATHINASATHIBABU @ SATHIRAJU, S/ LATE POLAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC COOLIE, R/D.NO.2/4 BC
COLONY, RAJAGOPALAPURAM, KANDIPUDI,
PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH
PRADESH-531127.
2. KOSETTIBAPANAIAH @ BAPANABBAI,, AGED ABOUT 84
YEARS, R/D.NO.11, RAJAGOPALAPURAM, KANDIPUDI,
PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT,
ANDHRA PRADESH
3. RALICHITTIMMA, W/ORALIAPPARAO, AGED ABOUT 78
YEARS, R/D.No.2
.2-39, KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA
MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT,
DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
4. GARIKINABABJI, S/O LATE BANDABBAY, AGED ABOUT
50 YEARS. COOLIE, R/D.N
R/D.No.1-1,
1, RATNAMPETA,
KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
5. GARIKINABANDAMMA, W/O LATE CHINA TATAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. COOLIE, RESIDENT
RESIDENT OF
RATNAMPETA, KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA
MANDAL , ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
6. CHOKKASATHIRAJU, S/O RAVVADAYELLAYYA, AGED
ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/D.N
R/D.No.3-55/1/7,
55/1/7, RATNAMPETA,
KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
2
7. MUTHINOOKAMMA, W/o. LATE POIAYYA, AGED ABOUT
74 YEARS. COOLIE, RESIDENT OF RATNAMPETA,
KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
8. NAGALAKASULAMMA, W/o. LATE APPARAO, AGED
ABOUT 82 YEARS. RESIDENT OF RATNAMPETA,
KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
9. PALIKAPOTHURAJU @ POTHAIAH, S/O VENKANNA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS. COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
RATNAMPETA, KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA
MANDAL , ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP
10. PITLAAPPALAKONDA, S/O APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 49
YEARS, COOLIE, RESIDENT OF RATNAMPETA,
KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
11. KUPPAPAIDAYYA, S/O APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS. COOLIE, RESIDENT OF RATNAMPETA,
KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
12. BATHINAMATHAMMA, W/o. CHINA APPARAO, AGED
ABOUT 59 YEARS. COOLIE, RESIDENT
OFRAJAGOPALAPURAM, KANDIPUDI, PAYAKARAOPETA
MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
13. VANASETTYAPPARAO, S/O ADEYYA, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, COOLIE, RESIDENT OF COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
RAJAGOPALAPURAM, KANDIPUDI, PAYAKARAOPETA
MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
14. VANASETTYTIRUPATHAMMA, W/OADIYYA, AGED ABOUT
79 YEARS. RESIDENT OF RAJAGOPALAPURAM,
KANDIPUDI, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI
DISTRICT, AP.
15. KOSETTYVENKATARAMANA, S/O APPANNA, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS. COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
RAJAGOPALAPURAM, KANDIPUDI, PAYAKARAOPETA
MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
16. CHAPALA APPARAO @ ABRHAM, C/o SRIRAMA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. COOLIE, KANTHI ROAD,
KAILASA NAGAR, GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPATNAM, AP.
3
17. CHAPALA APPALANARASA, W/o. LATE APPLAKONDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. COOLIE RESIDENT OF
RAJAGOPALAPURAM, KANDIPUDI, PAYAKARAOPETA
MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
18. CHAPALA SURAMMA, W/o. LATE PEDAKONDAIAH, AGED
ABOUT 78 YEARS. RESIDENT OF RAJAGOPALAPURAM,
KANDIPUDI, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI
DISTRICT, AP.
19. PONNADASRINIVASA RAO, S/O APPARAO, AGED ABOUT
40 YEARS. COOLIE, R.D.NO.2-37, COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
RATNAMPETA, KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA
MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
20. VADDADIJAGANNADHAM, S/O SOMINAIDU, AGED ABOUT
69 YEARS. COOLIE, RESIDENT OF RATNAMPETA,
KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
21. DIGUMARTHINAGESWARA RAO, S/O BULLABBAI, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS. COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
RATNAMPETA, KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA
MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
22. ADDALAKASULAMMA, W/O LATE SIMHACHALAM, AGED
ABOUT 69 YEARS, COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
RATNAMPETA, KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA
MANDAL , ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
23. ADDALANAGARATNAM, C/O APPARAO, AGED ABOUT 60
YEARS. COOLIE, RESIDENT OF RATNAMPETA,
KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETAMANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
24. BATHINAMUSALAMMA, W/O LATE BATHINAAPPARAO,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL, KANDIPUDI
RAJAGOPALAPURAM ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
25. VEMAGIRISIRISHA, D/O LATE VEMAGIRISATTEAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
RAJAGOPALAPURAM, KANDIPUDI PAYAKARAOPETA
MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
26. CHEELISATYAWATHI, W/O LATE CHAKRAMCHAKRAIYYA
@, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. COOLIE, RESIDENT OF
RAJAGOPALAPURAM, KANDIPUDI, PAYAKARAOPETA
4
MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
27. ADDALAVARAHALA RAO, S/O DURGAYYA, AGED ABOUT
49 YEARS. COOLIE, RESIDENT OF RATNAMPETA,
KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETAMANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
28. CHALAPALAPENTAYYA, S/O DURGAYYA, AGED ABOUT
67 YEARS. RESIDENT OF RATNAMPETA,
KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
29. PALIKAACHIYAMMA, W/OLATEBAYRAJU, AGED ABOUT
69 YEARS. RESIDENT OF RATNAMPETA,
KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
30. MUTHISATYAWATHI, W/O LATE KASULU, AGED ABOUT
59 YEARS. RESIDENT OF RATNAMPETA,
KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
31. VANASETTYKANCHAMMA, W/O LATE SATTIBABU, AGED
ABOUT 49 YEARS KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETA
MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
32. KARRI SRINU, S/O LATE KARRI RAMANA, AGED ABOUT
25 YEARS, KUMARAPURAM, PAYAKARAOPETAMANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP.
33. PALIKAAPPARAO, S/O LATE KANNAYYA, COOLIE,
KUMARAPURAM PAYAKARAOPETA MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, AP
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS
PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR
DIST, AP.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTINCT
(ERSTWHILE VISAKHAPATNAM).
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARSIPATNAM,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.
4. THE THASILDAR, PAYAKARAOPET MANDAL,
ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT (Erstwhile VISAKHAPATANAM
DISTRICT).
...RESPONDENT(S):
5
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
particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the
action of the Respondents Authorities, more particularly, the 4th
respondent/ Tahsildar is made attempt to dispossess the
petitioners from their lands and trying to mutate the petitioners
names in 1-B and Adangal Web Land of Payakapuram Mandal of
Anakapalli District (erstwhile Visakhapatnam District) without
following the procedure established by law as illegal, arbitrary and
violation of principles of natural justice and the act of authorities is
against the principle laid down by the Honble Apex court in the
case of RAME GOWDA V/S M VARADAPPA NAIDU Citation
2003 Law Suit (SC) 1248 and ChinnaPanduranga Rao Vs.
Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingampally and others Citation
2007 (6) ALD 348., as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles
of natural justice and also Article 14,15,16,21 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not
to dispose the Writ Petitioners concerned from their peaceful
possession and enjoying the extents with survey number
mentioned in the above and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. RAJA SEKHAR SYKAM
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following:
6
ORDER:
The present writ of Mandamus is filed to declare the action
of the Respondent Authorities more particularly the 4th
respondent/Tahsildar who made attempt to dispossess the
petitioners from their lands and trying to mutate the petitioners
names in 1B and Adangal Web Land of Payakapuram Mandal of
Anakapalli District, erstwhile Visakhapatnam District, without
following the procedure as established by law, as illegal, arbitrary
and violation of principles of natural justice and also Articles 14,
15, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently
direct the respondents not to dispossess the Writ Petitioners
concerned from their peaceful possession and enjoyment the
extents with survey number mentioned without following due
procedure of law.
2. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they are land
less poor persons and belongs to weaker section, considering the
same the 4th respondent Tehsildar issued D. Namuna Pattas and
D.K. Pattas more than two decades ago and their names entered
in revenue records and they are cultivating the land and eking
their livelihood. Unexpectedly the 4th respondent/Tehsildar and
7
his staff entered into the field and made efforts to dispossess the
petitioners intimating that lands will be allotted to Special
Economic Zone (SEZ) and such action of the respondents is
contrary to law, hence prayed to direct the respondent not to
dispossess without adhering to the procedure as established by
law.
3. The letter dated 01.07.2025, addressed by the 4th
respondent/Tehsildar to the Government Pleader’s office (part of
the record), indicates that the 4th respondent has assigned the
Mandal Revenue Inspector to investigate the matter. The
inspector’s report reveals that out of 33 total assignees, three i.e.
Petitioners 4, 5, and 21 as arrayed in the writ petition are in
possession and enjoying the land. The remaining D. Pattadars
(referred to as kaululdars) are sharing the yields; however, they
do not hold any rights to the land. As stated in the letter of the 4 th
respondent/Tehsildar, it is an undisputed fact that D. Pattas have
been issued to the petitioners, yet they are not cultivating the
land.
8
4. In Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu1, a three-Judge
Bench of 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.”
5. In Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation &
Ors.,2 it was held that the eviction from pavements and slums will
lead to deprivation of their livelihood and consequently to the
deprivation of the right to life. It was also held that pavement
dwellers and slum dwellers are using pavements and other public
properties for an unauthorised purpose; that opportunity of
hearing cannot be denied to them on ground that they are
trespassers; trespass is a tort and that but, even the law of torts
requires that though a trespasser may be evicted forcibly, the
force used must be no greater than what is reasonable and
1
(2004) 1 SCC 769
2
1985 (3) SCC 545
9
appropriate to the occasion and, what is even more important, the
trespasser should be asked and given a reasonable opportunity
to depart before force is used to expel.
6. The crux of the matter is that a person who asserts
possessory title over a particular property will have to show that
he is under settled or established possession of the said property.
But merely stray or intermittent acts of trespass do not give such
a right against the true owner. Settled possession means such
possession over the property which has existed for a sufficiently
long period of time, and has been acquiesced to by the true
owner. A casual act of possession does not have the effect of
interrupting the possession of the rightful owner. A stray act of
trespass, or a possession which has not matured into settled
possession, can be obstructed or removed by the true owner
even by using necessary force. Settled possession must be (i)
effective, (ii) undisturbed, and (iii) to the knowledge of the owner
or without any attempt at concealment by the trespasser. There
cannot be a straitjacket formula to determine settled possession.
Occupation of a property by a person as an agent or a servant
acting at the instance of the owner will not amount to actual legal
possession. The possession should contain an element of animus
10
possidendi. The nature of possession of the trespasser is to be
decided based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
7. Assertion contains in the affidavit filed in support of the writ
petition that the petitioners, who are claiming possession in
respect of the writ petition schedule property, claiming it to be
their ancestral property or placing reliance on the revenue record
such as PPB/Title/1B register and Adangals. A person in settled
possession of immoveable property is entitled under Section 9 of
the Specific Relief Act, to continue in such possession, without
being dispossessed save and except in accordance with law.
8. In the celebrated case of Menaka Gandhi vs. Union of
India3, 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 all the petitioners
have been granted D. Pattas and are considered to have
possession of the land, as established in the Rame Gowda case,
the petitioners who continue to hold such possession should not
be dispossessed except in accordance with the law. As held by
3
AIR 1978 SC 25
11
the Rame Gowda‘s case that the petitioners who are continue in
such possession, they shouldn’t dispossess without being except
in accordance with law.
10. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, and the
respondents are directed not to dispossess the petitioners except
in accordance with the established legal procedure.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in
this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 11.08.2025
Harin
12
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
25
W.P.No. 13036 OF 2025
Date: 11-08-2025
[ad_2]
Source link