Bayyapu Surender Reddy vs State Of Telangana
2024 Latest Caselaw 2680 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2680 Tel
Judgement Date : 12 July, 2024

Telangana High Court

Bayyapu Surender Reddy vs State Of Telangana on 12 July, 2024

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                    AND
       THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI


      WRIT PETITION Nos.13345 and 13347 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. P.Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel

representing Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioners.

Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional

Advocate General for the official respondents.

Ms. A.B.Lalitha Gayathri, learned counsel for the

unofficial respondents.

2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners inter alia seek a

direction to the respondents not to dispossess them from

the agricultural land measuring Acs.38.07 guntas in

Survey Nos.26, 30 and 31 and Acs. 45.03 guntas in Survey

Nos.29 and 33 situated at Bhongir Village and Mandal,

Nalgonda (presently Yadadri Bhongir) District (hereinafter

referred to as, "the subject land") on the ground that the

same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 21 and

300A of the Constitution of India and not to dispossess the

petitioners except in accordance with law.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits

that the petitioners are the owners and are in possession of

the subject land. However, the private respondents with

the help of police authorities are trying to dispossess the

petitioners from the subject land which is illegal and

arbitrary.

4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate

General submits that the police authorities are not involved

in dispossession of the petitioners from the subject land. It

is submitted that the dispute involved between the

petitioners and the unofficial respondents is civil in nature

and the police has no role to play in it.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made on

both sides and have perused the record.

6. It is trite law that person in possession cannot be

dispossessed except in accordance with law. The 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". Similarly, in

paragraph 12 of the judgment, the 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."

7. The decision in Yeshwant Singh (supra) was approved

by the Supreme Court in ITC Limited v. Adarsh Cooperative

Housing Society Limited 4.

8. The learned Additional Advocate General has rightly

contended that the police cannot ensure that the

AIR 1968 SC 620

AIR 1924 PC 144

ILR [1958] 2 All 394 at 404

(2013) 10 SCC 169

possession of the subject land is delivered to the unofficial

respondents. Needless to state that the respondents have

no authority in law to dispossess the petitioners, except by