Disposed

P. Purushotham, Hyd. and 3 Others v. the Prl. Secretary, Revenue Dept., and 3 Others

Telangana HC8 Sept 2023WP/19354/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a common order in two writ petitions seeking preservation of land possession. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that persons in possession cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law and directed revenue officials to take no action for dispossession. It also clarified that the court did not decide the factual question of whether petitioners were enc

What did the court decide?

Directed that no action for dispossession of petitioners be taken except in accordance with law under the Telangana Land Encroachment Act, 1905.

P. Purushotham, Hyd. and 3 Others Vs the Prl. Secretary… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

133771

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NOs: 26404 OF 2006 AND 19354 OF 2007

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 26404 OF 2006

¶9

Between:

¶10

S. MANOHAR SWAMY, Agricultrue R/o 1-8-432, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

¶11

M. Sampath Rao S/o rajeshwar rao, Agrl. Labour r/o 8-56/1, Vidyuthnagar Road, No.2 Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

¶12

Y. Narsimha Rao S/o Narayana Rao, Agrl. Labour rio H. No.4-49, Shailaja Sharma Apartments, Vikasnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

J. Manirao S/o Padmaraju, Agrl Labour ilo 9-121, Vijayapuri Colony, Near Rythubazar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

A. Goverdhan ReddyS/o Bapu Reddy, Agrl. Labour, rlo 4-48, Vikasnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶15

A. Ramchandraiah S/o Venkataiah, Labour rio Plot No. 34, Srikrishna Nagar, Colony, Near L.B. Nagar Check Post, Ranga Reddy District.

¶16

A. Sudhakar Reddy S/o Satyapal Reddy, Labour Ryo 1-4-63/4, New Maruthi Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶17

K. Narender Reddy S/o Damodar Reddy, Agriculure, R./o 4-34, Flat No. 305, Vikasnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶18

A. Sailaja W/o Sudhakar, Agriculture Ryo 1-5-6713, New Maruthi Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶19

S. Venkatram narsaiah S/o Narsaiah, Agriculture Rl/o 4-65^{(FlatNo. '103)} Jayanivas, Vikasnagar, Ranga ReddyDistrict.

¶20

ll.Ranganatha Swamy S/o Narsimaiah, Agrl. Labour rlo 4-65^(Flat No.^102), Jayanivas, Vikasnagar, Ranga Reddy District

¶21

S. Anasuya Wo S.M. Swamy, Household Rl/o Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

¶22

1 3. S. Venugopal S/o Manoharswamy, Agriculture.

¶23

l4.Sandhya Rani Wo Venugopal, Household.

¶24

15.T. Laxmi W/o T. Madusudhan, Household.

¶25

1 6. T.Madusudhan Sio Venkatswamy, Agriculture,

¶26

'l 7.T- Lalitha Wio Raghunathaswamy, Household.

¶27

18.T. Raghunathaswamy S/o Singaraswamy, Agriculture.

¶28

19.S. Mahesh Kunar S/o Manoharaswamy, Agriculture.

¶29

M. Nagender S/o Ramanujam, Agriculture. 21 . S. Manjula Wo Seetharamaiah, Agriculture.

¶30

S. Vamshi Krist na S/o /Seetharamaiah, Agrlculture.

¶31

23.S. Smitha D/o Flamaiah, Household.

¶32

24.8. Pavan Kumar S/o B. Damodar Swamy, Agriculture.

¶33

B. Kalapan D/o B. Damodaraswamy, Household.

¶34

26.B. lndira Wo B Damodaraswamy, Household.

¶35

27.8. Samyukta W/o B.P. Reddy, Household.

¶36

Ravinder Redd 7 S/o Ramachandra Reddy, Agriculture.

¶37

...PE TTTTONER(S)

¶38

AND

¶39

THE PRINCIPI.L SECY, REV,. DEPT., Government of Arrdhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hy lerabad.

¶40

The Chief Corrmissioner of Land Administration, O'o Chir:f^{,3ornmissioner} of Land Administration, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶41

The District Co lector, Ranga Reddy District, O/o Lzrkdikapo,cl, llyderbad.

¶42

The mandal Revenue Officer, Shamirpet mandal, Fanga Lerddlr District.

¶43

..RESPONDENTS

¶44

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution o{ lndia praying that in the circumstances stateC in the affidavit filed therewith, the lligh Court may be pleased to issue Wr t of Mandamus or any other appnrpriatr: \Uril, and direction the respondents to^,:onsider and assign/allot the land which ir; in possession of the petitioner in Sy No. 1zlpad and 10241pat1, Mal(aram .rnd Jawaharnagar Villages of Shamirp(!t Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and consequently direct the respondents to issrre paftedar passbooks and title deeds by set aside the impugned proceedirgs No.E51224712003 dated 21 03-2006 passed by the Respondent No.3.

¶45

Counsel for the Pet tioners: SRI B.S.S.PRASAD

¶46

Counsel for the Res pondents: Dr. J.VIJAYA LAXMI,

¶47

GP FOR REVENUE (AS,S!GN14EN])

¶48

".' WRIT PETITION NO: 19354 OF 2007

¶49

Between:

¶50

1 P. PURUSHOTHAM, HYD, S/o Veeraiah Fi/o. 16-11A/A/ 26/A1, Matakpet, Hyderabad.

¶51

2 P ..Vijayalakshmi, Wo. Purushotham R/o. 16-1 1-'16A/l/ 26/A1 , Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶52

P. shakuntala, Wo.Late P. Veeraiah Rl/o. 16-11-16NN 26l,4l , Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶53

B. Janakamma, W/o.Late Narasanna Rl/o. '16-11-16NN 26141, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

¶54

...PETITtONER(S)

¶55

AND

¶56

1 THE PRL. SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPT., GovernemntofAndhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad,A.. P

¶57

2 The Chief Commissioner of Land Adminishation, o/o Chief Commissioner of Land Administration , Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶58

3 The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District,, Lakadikapool,Hyderabad. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Shamirpet Mandal,, (Thasildar) Ranga Reddy District.

¶59

...RESPONDENTS

¶60

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or orders or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the rejection of the claim of the petitioners for assignment of land admeasurlng each 5 acres in Sy.No. 961 of Jawaharnagar Village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R. District. each to the^{petitionersin} terms of G.O.Ms.No. 17 dt. 5-1-1976 as contained in the Merno of the^2nd Respondent bearing No. E51224712003 dt. 21-3-2006 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider assignment of land to the petitioners which has been in possession of the petitioners.

I I ) I l

/ .,./

.A. NO: 1 OF 2007 '^ME --N^{oi24gg9_qE2AQZ)}

¶65

Petition under S ection^'1 51 CPC praying that in th€ circu'n!;tarrces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may t,e pleased to direct the respondents here in not to dispossess the petitioners from thr.'ir respective lands in Sy.No.961 of Jawahar Nagar Village, of Shamirpet Mardal, Ranga Reddy District, pending dispc sal of the writ petition.

¶66

Cqunsel for the Petit oners: SRI B.S.S.PRASAD

¶67

Counsel for the Res; ondents: Dr. J.VIJAYA LAXMI, GP FOR REVENUE (ASSIGNMEIIT)

¶68

The Court made the bllowing: COMMON ORDER

¶69

ll I l il il il: I

¶70

il i l l i, i I l I I I i ! i I

¶71

¶72

,/"

¶73

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND

¶74

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SIIRAVAN KT'MAR

¶75

WRIT PETITION Nos.26t1o4 of 2o,o,6 and 19354 of 2OO7

¶76

COMMON ORDERi eer he Hon'ble the Chi{Justice AIok Arc.dhe)

¶77

Mr. B.S.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitloners.

¶78

Dr. J.Vijaya Laxmi, learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment) for the revenue officials.

¶79

In these writ petitions, the petitioners who claim to be in possession of various parcels of land situated at Jawaharnagar Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, seek a direction to the revenue officials not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the land of which they claim to be in possession.

¶80

The grievance of the petitioners as pleaded in the writ petitions is that the respondents are trying to interfere with their peaceful possession over the subject land.

¶81

¶82

l,earned counsel for the petitioners suomit tLrat even assuming th rt the petitioners are in unau rhorised occupation o i the land in question, th ey canrnc,t be dispossessed from the land in questir>n, 3xcept in accordance w th law

¶83

The alxesaid submission has n,rt bee n fairiy disputed by :he learned Government Plearler frrr Re venue (Assignment)

¶84

It is trite law that person in possession cannot be dispossessec. except in accordance with law. l'he llon'ble Supreme Court in Yeshwant Singh v. Jagdish Singht in paragraph^j0 quoted with approval the decisioa of Privy Council in ltidaapur Zamindary Company Limitect v. Naresh Narayan Rc yz and held that "in India person.s are not permitted tc take forcible possession; they musr. c'bktin such possession as theg are entitled to through^,t court'.

¶85

Similrly, 1n paragraph 12 of ttLe judSlmt:nt, the Honble Sr rpreme Court referred to th : de<:rs;iorr of the

¶86

'^{etn1968 sco ro}

¶87

'atn^{t9z4 pc I ta}

¶88

¶89

Allahabad High Court in Yar Mohammad v. Lakshmi Das3 and held as under:

¶90

"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."

¶91

The decision in Yeshwaat Singh (supra) was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC Limited v. Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society Limiteda.

¶92

In view of the aforesaid well settled legal position which has been conceded to by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (Assignment), it is evident that even if the petitioners are encroachers in respect of the land in 1n question, they cannot be dispossessed, except accordance with larrr,.

¶93

Therefore, it is directed that no action for dispossession of the petitioners in these writ^petitions shall

¶94

'^{tLR 1test1z ett 394at4o4} o (zor) ro scc ros

¶95

¶96

be taken, excel)t in accordance with law. Ne:dless -o sitate that the respondents shall be at liberty t.o in: ti ate the proceedings a ;ainst the petitioners under the^'l'e.angana Land Encroachment Act, 1905, In case th e reriponrlents hnd that the petitioners are in possession of tLre la:T d in question. It irr made clear that this Court has not :ecorded any linding w:ether or not the petitioners ale in rcsst:ssion of the land o[ which they claim to be in o:cuparron, as it being a queslion of fact.

¶97

I i. With tlre aforesaid directions, the u rit p,:t tions are disposed of.

¶98

Miscel aneous applications pending, if aLny, shall

¶99

stand closerl. However, there shall be no <,rder a:; tc costs.

¶100

To,

¶101

SI}/. K.SiREEJIAMA MURTHY ASSISTAhIT REGIS //TRUE COPY// liEcTtoN oFF|CER

¶102

, 3::,j:lff1:?,ri""r?El?, Revenue Department, Gove.n nenr of reransana, 2. The chief c<,mmissioner of .Land Administration o/o Chief 3ommissioner of r.^^!gn!.f{qinir I ne utsrnct (;oflector,^{rtration, Nampaily,} fglga Redily^HvoJr"OJOl District,^"""' O/o _akdikarroot. Hvderbad. 4. rhe Mandat ievenue o{ficli _srri-frirpei n,nJni;I, R";s;it"ia;,Di;;;: I 9n"^{cc to sRt B.s.s.pRASAD,} ft;;;" ibi;ut,i^{" "- ' \vvv, s'J.'uL.} 6 Two ccs to 3p FoR. REV^ENU'. ie'strc"urilEili t, H,s,-, ()ourr for the state bf _^{Telan_ganaa Hyderabad} tOUn7. Two CD Cop ies BSR GJP

fttq.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 08/09/2023

ORDER

,4 1 ATE O
r7\t ).
?\
I
) $$ Is
'[1
'_l ',/
=?-

¶108

WP.No.26404 ot 2006 and 19354 ot 2007