THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION Nos.26404 of 2006 and 19354 of 2007
COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. B.S.S.Prasad, 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.
3. 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. 2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that even assuming that the petitioners are in unauthorised occupation of the land in question, they cannot be dispossessed from the land in question, except in accordance with law.
5. The aforesaid submission has not been fairly disputed by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment).
6. 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".
7. 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 3 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."
8. The decision in Yeshwant Singh (supra) was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC Limited v. Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limited 4.
9. 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.
10. Therefore, it is directed that no action for dispossession of the petitioners in these writ petitions shall 3 ILR [1958] 2 All 394 at 404 4 (2013) 10 SCC 169 4 be taken, except in accordance with law. Needless to state 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.
11. 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 08.09.2023 vs