A person in settled possession of land cannot be dispossessed without due legal process, reflecting the principles of natural justice.

ORDER:

The present writ of Mandamus is filed to declare the action of the Respondent Authorities more particularly the 4^th respondent/Tahsildar who made attempt to dispossess the petitioners from their lands and trying to mutate the petitioners names in 1B and Adangal Web Land of Payakapuram Mandal of Anakapalli District, erstwhile Visakhapatnam District, without following the procedure as established by law, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and also Articles 14, 15, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to dispossess the Writ Petitioners concerned from their peaceful possession and enjoyment the extents with survey number mentioned without following due procedure of law.

2. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they are land less poor persons and belongs to weaker section, considering the same the 4^th respondent Tehsildar issued D. Namuna Pattas and D.K. Pattas more than two decades ago and their names entered in revenue records and they are cultivating the land and eking their livelihood. Unexpectedly the 4^th respondent/Tehsildar and his staff entered into the field and made efforts to dispossess the petitioners intimating that lands will be allotted to Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and such action of the respondents is contrary to law, hence prayed to direct the respondent not to dispossess without adhering to the procedure as established by law.

3. The letter dated 01.07.2025, addressed by the 4^th respondent/Tehsildar to the Government Pleader's office (part of the record), indicates that the 4^th respondent has assigned the Mandal Revenue Inspector to investigate the matter. The inspector's report reveals that out of 33 total assignees, three i.e. Petitioners 4, 5, and 21 as arrayed in the writ petition are in possession and enjoying the land. The remaining D. Pattadars (referred to as kaululdars) are sharing the yields; however, they do not hold any rights to the land. As stated in the letter of the 4^th respondent/Tehsildar, it is an undisputed fact that D. Pattas have been issued to the petitioners, yet they are not cultivating the land.

4. In Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu , [(2004) 1 SCC 769] , a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court, while discussing the Indian law on the subject, observed as under:

“It is thus clear that so far as the Indian law is concerned, the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may even use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser. A rightful owner who has been wrongfully dispossessed of land may retake possession if he can do so peacefully and without the use of unreasonable force. If the trespasser is in settled possession of the property belonging to the rightful owner, the rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law.”

5. In Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors.,, [1985 (3) SCC 545] it was held that the eviction from pavements and slums will lead to deprivation of their livelihood and consequently to the deprivation of the right to life. It was also held that pavement dwellers and slum dwellers are using pavements and other public properties for an unauthorised purpose; that opportunity of hearing cannot be denied to them on ground that they are trespassers; trespass is a tort and that but, even the law of torts requires that though a trespasser may be evicted forcibly, the force used must be no greater than what is reasonable and appropriate to the occasion and, what is even mo