Constitution of India — Articles 14, 19, 21 & 300-A — Right to property — Due process
No person can be dispossessed from immovable property except by procedure established by law. Any interference by revenue authorities without notice, opportunity of hearing and statutory backing is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Possession — Settled possession — Protection of law
A person in peaceful and settled possession of immovable property is entitled to retain such possession and cannot be dispossessed except by recourse to law, even by the true owner.
(Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, (2004) 1 SCC 769 — followed)
Trespasser — Even unlawful occupant — Due process mandatory
Even a trespasser or person in unauthorized occupation cannot be forcibly evicted without following due process of law. State authorities have no power to dispossess without statutory authorization.
(Ram Ratan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 188 — followed)
State authorities — Executive action — Limitation
The State and its executive officers cannot interfere with possession of citizens unless such action is expressly authorized by law.
(State of W.B. v. Vishnunarayan & Associates (P) Ltd., (2002) 4 SCC 134 — relied upon)
Natural justice — Notice and hearing — Mandatory
Dispossession or demolition without issuance of show cause notice and opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and is illegal.
(H.B. Yogalaya v. State of U.P., (2004) 13 SCC 518 — followed)
Right to life — Article 21 — Procedural fairness
“Procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable. Any deprivation of property affecting livelihood attracts Article 21 protection.
(Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 25 — applied)
Eviction — Even from public land — Opportunity mandatory
Even pavement dwellers or unauthorized occupants are entitled to notice and reasonable opportunity before eviction.
(Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, (1985) 3 SCC 545 — applied)
FACTS (as recorded by the Court)
-
The petitioner claimed peaceful possession over:
-
Ac.10.46 cents
-
Situated in Sy.No.210
-
Santha Kowur Village
-
Thondur Mandal
-
Y.S.R. Kadapa District.
-
-
The grievance of the petitioner was that:
-
Respondent No.3 (Tahsildar)
-
Acting at the instance of private respondents (4 to 7)
-
Was interfering and threatening dispossession
-
Without issuing notice
-
Without opportunity of hearing
-
Without following any procedure known to law.
-
-
The petitioner invoked Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution.
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the revenue authorities can interfere with or dispossess a person from peaceful possession of immovable property without following due process of law?
COURT’S ANALYSIS
1. Protection of settled possession
The Court reiterated the settled legal principle that:
A person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain possession and cannot be dispossessed except in accordance with law.
Reliance was placed on:
Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu
(2004) 1 SCC 769
where the Supreme Court held:
-
Even the rightful owner cannot dispossess a person in settled possession by force.
-
Law must be taken recourse to.
2. True owner also bound by law
Relying on:
Ram Ratan v. State of Uttar Pradesh
(1977) 1 SCC 188
the Court observed:
-
Even a true owner cannot forcibly dispossess a trespasser if the trespasser is in settled possession.
-
Possession can be recovered only through lawful means.
3. Executive power has statutory limits
The Court referred to:
State of West Bengal v. Vishnunarayan & Associates (P) Ltd.
(2002) 4 SCC 134
and held:
-
State authorities cannot interfere with possession unless action is authorized by statute.
-
Executive instructions or pressure from private parties have no legal sanction.
4. Natural justice is mandatory
The Court relied on:
H.B. Yogalaya v. State of U.P.
(2004) 13 SCC 518
and reaffirmed:
-
No demolition or dispossession can take place without:
-
Show-cause notice
-
Opportunity of hearing.
-
5. Constitutional guarantee under Article 21
Referring to:
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
AIR 1978 SC 25
the Court emphasized:
-
“Procedure established by law” must be:
-
fair,
-
just,
-
reasonable,
-
non-arbitrary.
-
Any forcible dispossession violates Article 21.
6. Even unauthorized occupants are protected
Relying on:
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
(1985) 3 SCC 545
the Court observed:
-
Even trespassers cannot be removed forcibly.
-
Reasonable notice and opportunity must precede eviction.
-
Force, if used, must be minimal and proportionate.
FINAL FINDING
The Court held:
-
The petitioner is entitled to protection of her possession.
-
Revenue authorities cannot interfere without following due process of law.
OPERATIVE PORTION
The writ petition was disposed of with the following direction:
Respondents shall not interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petitioner’s subject property except by following due process of law.
Costs
No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions
All pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
RATIO DECIDENDI
-
Peaceful possession of immovable property is protected by law irrespective of title.
-
Even the true owner or State authorities cannot dispossess a person without due process of law.
-
Revenue authorities have no power to interfere with possession without statutory backing.
-
Natural justice — notice and opportunity — is mandatory before dispossession.
-
Article 300-A read with Article 21 prohibits arbitrary deprivation of property.
