Telangana High Court
Shivaram Singh, vs The Hyderabad Urban Development ... on 4 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.11513 of 2008
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar)
Mr. K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Dr. Juttukonda Vijaya Laxmi, learned Government Pleader for
Revenue (Assignment) for the respondents.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following
relief:
"to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly
one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring the
action of respondents in threatening to dispossess the
petitioner from the agricultural lands admeasuring 14
Acs.27 Gts., in Sy.No.153, 154 & 155, Jawaharnagar
village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as
arbitrary, illegal highhanded, without any right,
contrary to the directions issued in order dt.25.03.2004
in W.P.No.3912/1992 of this Hon'ble Court apart from
being contrary to principles of natural justice and
Article 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and
consequentially direct the respondents to refrain from
interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the agricultural lands admeasuring 14 Acs. 27 Gts.
in Sy.No.153, 154 & 155, Jawaharnagar village,
Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and pass
such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
HC, J & NVSK, J
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who claims to be in
possession of various parcels of land situated at Jawaharnagar
Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, seeks a direction to
the revenue officials not to interfere with the possession and
enjoyment of the land of which he claims to be in possession.
3. The grievance of the petitioner as pleaded in the writ petition is
that the respondents are trying to interfere with his peaceful
possession over the subject land contrary to the directions issued in
order dated 25.03.2004 in W.P. No.3912 of 1992 by this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even assuming
that the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the land in
question, he 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
AIR 1968 SC 620
AIR 1924 PC 144
HC, J & NVSK, J
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 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 petitioner is encroacher in
respect of the land in question, he cannot be dispossessed, except in
accordance with law.
10. Therefore, it is directed that no action for dispossession of the
petitioner in the writ petition shall be taken, except in accordance
with law. It is needless to state that the respondents shall be at
liberty to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner under the
ILR [1958] 2 All 394 at 404
(2013) 10 SCC 169
HC, J & NVSK, J
Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in case the respondents
find that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question.
It is made clear that this Court has not recorded any finding whether
or not the petitioner is in possession of the land of which he claims to
be in occupation, as it being a question of fact.
11. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
___________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
___________________________
N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J
Date: 04-12-2023
LSK
