ORDER :

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

“…pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents herein particularly Respondent No.3 in highhandedly interfering and the threatening to dispossess the petitioner from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of an extent of Ac.10.46 cents, situated in Sy.No.210 of Santha Kovvur Village, Thondur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District, on the ascendancy of the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein, without issuing any notice or opportunity of personal hearing or following the due process of law is questioned as the same is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the well-established legal principles apart from being violative of fundamental and constitutional rights guaranteed under articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently district the Respondents, not to interfere in petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property of an extent of Ac.10.46 cents, situated in Sy.No.210 of Santha Kovvur Village, Thondur Mandal, Y.S.R. Kadapa District and pass such other or further orders..……”

2. It is the pleading of the petitioner 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 the Hon’ble 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 Hon’ble 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, reported in (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 Hon’ble 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, relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

"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. 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