Telangana High Court
Tatari Lakshmamma vs State Of Telangana,Revenue Department on 4 December, 2023
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITIONS No.41899 of 2017, 287 of 2018 and 22236 of 2019
COMMON ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice N.V. Shravan Kumar)
Heard Mr. P.Narasimhulu and Mr. Rapolu Bhaskar, learned
counsel for the petitioners.
Dr. Juttukonda Vijaya Laxmi, learned Government Pleader for
Revenue (Assignment) for the respondents.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners who claim to be in
possession of various parcels of land situated at Jawaharnagar Village
Kapra Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (previously 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.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits 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.
HC, J & NVSK, J
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 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.
AIR 1968 SC 620
AIR 1924 PC 144
ILR [1958] 2 All 394 at 404
(2013) 10 SCC 169
HC, J & NVSK, J
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 the writ petitions 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 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, these writ petitions are 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
