THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
W.P.Nos.32081, 39102, 39466 of 2013; 156 of 2014;
8287 of 2015; 15721 of 2017; and 10105 of 2020
COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. K.Venu Madhav, Mr. Raghavan K. Thalapaka,
Mr. B.Mahender Reddy, Mr. G.Ravi Chandran,
Mr. S.Sridhar and Mr. V.Raghunath, learned counsel for
the petitioners.
Dr. J.Vijaya Laxmi, learned Government Pleader for
Revenue (Assignment) for the revenue officials.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners who claim to be
in possession of various parcels of land situated at
Jawaharnagar Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, seek a direction to the revenue officials not to
interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land of
which they claim to be in possession.
2
3. In W.P.No.32081 of 2013, it is claimed that the land
measuring Acs.12.07 guntas of Survey Nos.682, 701, 702
and 703 situated at Jawarharnagar Village Shivar,
Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was allotted to
the petitioner's father by the Jawaharnagar Land
Colonisation Cooperative Society.
4. In W.P.No.39102 of 2013, the petitioner claims that
land comprised in Survey No.668 belongs to the petitioner.
5. Similarly, in W.P.No.39466 of 2013, the petitioners
have averred that they have constructed the houses on
land bearing Survey No.706/p of Shanthinagar at
Jawaharnagar Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District.
6. In W.P.No.156 of 2014, the petitioners claim that
they have constructed houses on the land bearing Survey
No.474 of Jawaharnagar Grampanchayat, Shamirpet
Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Similarly, in W.P.No.8287 of 2015, it is claimed that
the land measuring Acs.5.00 and Acs.4.25 guntas in
3
Survey Nos.541 and 559 respectively situated at
Jawarharnagar Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy
District, was allotted to the petitioners by the
Jawaharnagar Land Colonisation Cooperative Society.
8. In W.P.No.15721 of 2017, the petitioner claims that
the land measuring Acs.11.15 guntas in Survey Nos.644,
645, 648 and 351 of Chennapur, Jawaharnagar Village,
Medchal Taluq, Ranga Reddy District, was allotted to her
father.
9. Similarly, in W.P.No.10105 of 2020, the petitioners
claim that they have constructed residential houses on
their land measuring Acs.4.20 guntas in Survey No.720 of
Malkaram Village, Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri
District, and they are in peaceful possession of the same.
10. The grievance of the petitioners as pleaded in the writ
petitions is that the respondents are trying to interfere with
their peaceful possession over the subject land.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that even assuming that the petitioners are in unauthorised 4 occupation of the land in question, they cannot be dispossessed from the land in question, except in accordance with law.
12. The aforesaid submission has not been fairly disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment).
13. It is trite law that person in possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yeshwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh 1 in paragraph 10 quoted with approval the decision of Privy Council in Midnapur Zamindary Company Limited v. Naresh Narayan Roy 2 and held that "in India persons are not permitted to take forcible possession; they must obtain such possession as they are entitled to through a court".
14. Similarly, in paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision of the 1 AIR 1968 SC 620 2 AIR 1924 PC 144 5 Allahabad High Court in Yar Mohammad v. Lakshmi Das 3 and held as under:
"Law respects possession even if there is no title to support it. It will not permit any person to take the law in his own hands and to dispossess a person in actual possession without having recourse to a court. No person can be allowed to become a judge in his own cause."
15. The decision in Yeshwant Singh (supra) was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC Limited v. Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited 4.
16. In view of the aforesaid well settled legal position which has been conceded to by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), it is evident that even if the petitioners are encroachers in respect of the land in question, they cannot be dispossessed, except in accordance with law.
17. Therefore, it is directed that no action for dispossession of the petitioners in these writ petitions shall be taken, except in accordance with law. Needless to state 3 ILR [1958] 2 All 394 at 404 4 (2013) 10 SCC 169 6 that the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate the proceedings against the petitioners under the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in case the respondents find that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question. It is made clear that this Court has not recorded any finding whether or not the petitioners are in possession of the land of which they claim to be in occupation, as it being a question of fact.
18. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions are disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR, J 05.09.2023 vs