Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
K Indu vs The State Of Ap on 19 August, 2025
APHC010411662025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No. 21681 of 2025
Between:
1. K INDU, W/O NAGENDRA PRASAD IMMIDI, AGED ABOUT 40
YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O 12-109, P AND T COLONY,
NEAR COMMUNITY HALL DISULKHNAGAR, SAROORNAGAR,
RANGAREDDI DISTRICT, HYDERABAD - 500060
2. K BINDU, W/O K RAMPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O
9-51, NAIDU BUILDINGS, GOPALAVANAM. SRIKALAHASTHI
TOWN, TIRUPATI, DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT 7674,
TURQUOISE STREET, DUBLIN, CA 94568 USA REP BY GPA
HOLDER K. INDU, W/O NAGENDRA PRASAD IMMIDI,
(PETITIONER NO. 1) AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCCBUSINESS, R/O 12-109, P AND T COLONY, NEAR
COMMUNITY HALL, DISULKHNAGAR, SAROORNAGAR,
RANGAREDDI DISTRICT, HYDERABAD - 500060
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
GUNTUR.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SRIKALAHASTHI,
TIRUPATI, DISTRICT.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, SRIKALAHASTHI MANDAL, TIRUPATI,
DISTRICT.
...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 an appropriate order, writ or direction, one in
2
the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the high-handed action of the
respondents in trying to disposes the petitioners and from subject
property (B Schedule Property forming part of the A Schedule Property)
of the following measurements viz., 122 feet of length 122 feet
approximately (37 Meters) and width 2.5 feet (0.762 meters) from North
to South towards the Eastern Side of the A Schedule Property i.e., B
Schedule Property forming part of the A Schedule Property of an extent
of 1662. 22 sq yards or Ac. 0. 34 cents bearing D No. 16-343, in Sy No.
202/2 of Panagal, P N Road, Srikalahasthi Town, Tirupati, District,
without putting petitioners herein on notice and without affording an
opportunity of hearing and without following procedure established by
law as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of fundamental and
constitutional rights guaranteed under the Articles, 14, 19, 21 and 300 -
A of The Constitution Of India and by further declaring that the
highhanded action of the official respondents, more particularly the said
high handed action of staff and officers of 4TH respondent as illegal,
arbitrary, unjust and violative of fundamental and constitutional rights
guaranteed under the Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300 - A of The
Constitution Of India and consequently direct the Respondents not to
dispossess the petitioner herein from the subject property (B Schedule
Property forming part of the A Schedule Property) of the following
measurements viz., 122 feet of length 122 feet approximately (37
Meters) and width 2.5 feet (0.762 meters) from North to South towards
the Eastern Side of the A Schedule Property.e., B Schedule Property
forming part of the A Schedule Property of an extent of 1662. 22 sq
yards or Ac. 0. 34 cents bearing D No. 16-343, in Sy No. 202/2 of
Panagal, P N Road, Srikalahasthi Town, Tirupati, District, without
putting the petitioner herein on notice and without an affording an
opportunity of hearing in the interests of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. M SRI ATCHYUT
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:
“…issue an appropriate order, writ or direction, one in the
nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the high-handed
action of the respondents in trying to disposes the
petitioners and from subject property (B Schedule Property
forming part of the A Schedule Property) of the following
measurements viz., 122 feet of length 122 feet
approximately (37 Meters) and width 2.5 feet (0.762
meters) from North to South towards the Eastern Side of
the A Schedule Property i.e., B Schedule Property forming
part of the A Schedule Property of an extent of 1662. 22 sq
yards or Ac. 0. 34 cents bearing D No. 16-343, in Sy No.
202/2 of Panagal, P N Road, Srikalahasthi Town, Tirupati,
District, without putting petitioners herein on notice and
without affording an opportunity of hearing and without
following procedure established by law as illegal, arbitrary,
unjust and violative of fundamental and constitutional rights
guaranteed under the Articles, 14, 19, 21 and 300A of The
Constitution Of India and by further declaring that the
highhanded action of the official respondents, more
particularly the said high handed action of staff and officers
of 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of
fundamental and constitutional A of The rights guaranteed
under the Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300 Constitution Of India
and consequently direct the Respondents not to dispossess
the petitioner herein from the subject property (B Schedule
Property forming part of the A Schedule Property) of the
following measurements viz., 122 feet of length 122 feet
approximately (37 Meters) and width 2.5 feet (0.762
meters) from North to South towards the Eastern Side of
the A Schedule Propertyi.e., B Schedule Property forming
part of the A Schedule Property of an extent of 1662. 22 sq
yards or Ac. 0. 34 cents bearing D No. 16-343, in Sy No.
202/2 of Panagal, P N Road, Srikalahasthi Town, Tirupati,
District, without putting the petitioner herein on notice and
without an affording an opportunity of hearing in the
interests of justice and pass such other order or orders ….”
4
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.”
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 interfere1
(2004)1 SCC 769
2
(1977) 1 SCC 188
5with 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
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
3
(2004) 13 SCC 518
4
AIR 1978 SC 25
6
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: 19.08.2025
siva
7
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.21681 of 2025
Date: 19.08.2025
siva