P. Purushotham, Hyd. And 3 Others vs The Prl. Secretary, Revenue ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2113 Tel

        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.

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

AIR 1968 SC 620

AIR 1924 PC 144

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

ILR [1958] 2 All 394 at 404

(2013) 10 SCC 169

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