(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in trying to disposing the petitioners from the dry land in Sy.No. 68/11 to an extent of Ac.0-59 cents, in Sy.No.64/14 an extent of Ac.0- 42 cents and in Sy.No.64/15 to an extent of Ac.1-15 cents situated at Kommaragunta Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to follow due process of law in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.64/14 an extent of Ac.0-42 cents and in Sy.No.64/15 to an extent of Ac.1- 15 cents situated at Kommaragunta Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District and to pass such other order or orders.)

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

                  “…to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 and 3 in trying to disposing the petitioners from the dry land in Sy.No.68/11 to an extent of Ac.0-59 cents, in Sy.No.64/14 an extent of Ac.0-42 cents and in Sy.No.64/15 to an extent of Ac.1-15 cents situated at Kommaragunta Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District is arbitrary,, illegal and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondents 2 and 3 to follow due process of law in trying to dispossess the petitioner from the land in Sy.No.64/14 an extent of Ac.0-42 cents and in Sy.No.64/15 to an extent of Ac.1-15 cents situated at Kommaragunta Village, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District and to pass such other order 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 India4, 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 petitioner should not be dispossessed except in accordance with the law, as held in Rame Gowda’s case (supra-1).

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’ subject property, except by following due process of law. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.