A person in settled possession of immovable property cannot be dispossessed without adherence to legal procedures and principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in an extent of Ac.0.02½ cents, Ac.0.02½ cents, Ac.0.02 cents and Ac.0.02½ cents respectively covered by S.No.1131-17 and 1131-19 situated in Doddipalle Village, Pileru Mandal in Annamayya District, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent officials not to interfere with the peaceful possession of subject land of the petitioner thereby securing their lawful rights and to grant any other relief deemed appropriate in the interest of justice.”

2. It is the pleading of the petitioners that a person in settled possession of immoveable property is entitled to continue in such possession, without being dispossessed save and except in accordance with law.

3. 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.”

4. In the case of Ram Ratan and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , 1977 (1) SCC 188 , question cropped up before Supreme Court with regard to right of private defence of trespasser against true owner. Their Lordships held that true owner has no right to dispossess the trespasser by use of force in case trespasser was in possession in full knowledge of the true owner. Observation made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is reproduced as under:-

“In State of W.B. and others vs. Vishnunarayan and Associates (P) Ltd. and another, (2002) 4 SCC 134 , held that State and its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others except where their actions are authorized by specific provisions of law.”

5. In, H.B. Yogalaya vs. State of U.P. and others , (2004) 13 SCC 518 the apex Court held that without any show cause notice or hearing neither demolition can take place nor a person may be dispossessed from the property, to quote relevant portion: "Otherwise also principles of natural justice demand that a show- cause notice and hearing be given before demolishing or dispossessing a person from the properties of which he is in possession. Counsel appearing for the respondents did not contest this proposition."

"It is well settled that the law requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse to the remedies under, the law."

6. In the celebrated case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India , AIR 1978 SC 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the phrase no one shall be deprived of one’s life and liberty except procedure established by law as employed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The principles of natural justice demands that the persons who are affected should be heard.

7. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law as held by the Rame Gowda’s case that the petitioners who are continue in such possession, they shouldn’t dispossess without being except in accordance with l