A person in settled possession, even if an encroacher or trespasser, cannot be dispossessed by force; the rightful owner or State must follow the procedure established by law and the principles of natural justice to effect eviction.

COMMON ORDER:

1. Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical, this Court dispose of these cases by way of this common order.

2. The relief sought in these writ petitions is to direct the respondents not to dispossess the petitioners from the lands in Sy.No.295/1 to an extent of Ac.1.18 cents, Sy.No.294/3 to an extent of Ac.0.49 cents and Sy.No.294/1 to an extent of Ac.2.57 cents situated at Kancheru Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents are trying to dispossess the petitioners without paying compensation and the same is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law i.e., The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

4. Heard Sri N.Bharath Simha Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners’ husbands were granted D-Form pattas for the land adjacent to the subject land of the writ petitions, and that the respondents have acquired the said land for the purpose of Bhogapuram International Airport. The petitioners have encroached upon the property and the Tahsildar issued a possession certificate in the year 2014, which establishes that the petitioners are in possession of the property. Therefore, the respondents should acquire the land by paying compensation as established under law.

6. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit and stated that possession certificate was not issued as per the procedure as established under law and the petitioners have fabricated the said possession certificate and admitted that the D-Form patta was granted to the petitioners’ husbands and while acquiring the same, compensation of Rupees forty lakhs was paid to the petitioners’ husbands. The petitioners have not filed any evidence showing that they are in possession of the property and certificate filed by the petitioners is fabricated one. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners are not entitled for any relief, as prayed in the writ petitions and hence, prayed to dismiss these writ petitions.

7. The issue revolves round the possession certificate issued by the respondents. The petitioners are claiming the possession basing upon the possession certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bogapuram. The contention of the respondents counsel is that the said document is fabricated one. The Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to issue possession certificate.

8. As disputed questions of facts are involved, this Court is not inclined to go into merits. Even encroacher should be dispossessed as per law, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the following judgments.

9. In Rame Gowda v. M.Varadappa Naidu ,¹(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