The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that peaceful possession of property, even by a trespasser, is protected under the Constitution until lawfully disturbed through due process. This judgment reinforces the principle that state machinery cannot act as an instrument of private dispute resolution without adhering to procedural safeguards under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, Sadhineni Praveen Kumar and Chitekala Pothu R Aju, claim peaceful possession of a residential property in Sy.No.43/2, Burugupalem Village, measuring 341.33 square yards. They allege that the unofficial respondents - Bollapragada Thammiraju and Harishankar - have been attempting to forcibly evict them. The official respondents, including the District Collector, Tahsildar, and Village Revenue Officer, are accused of facilitating this interference without any legal proceeding.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking protection from unlawful dispossession. No prior civil or revenue proceeding had been initiated to determine title or possession. The respondents did not produce any order, notice, or judicial direction authorizing interference with the petitioners’ possession.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to cease all interference with their possession of the property and to refrain from acting on the claims of the unofficial respondents without following due process of law.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether state authorities may interfere with peaceful possession of property without issuing a show-cause notice, conducting a hearing, or following any statutory procedure, and whether such interference violates Article 21 and Article 300-A of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, H.B. Yogalaya v. State of U.P., and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to argue that peaceful possession is a protected interest under Article 300-A and Article 21. They contended that natural justice requires notice and hearing before dispossession, and that state officials cannot act as private enforcers of disputed claims. The absence of any legal order or inquiry rendered the interference arbitrary and unconstitutional.
For the Respondent
The state counsel did not dispute the legal propositions cited by the petitioners. They conceded that no statutory procedure had been followed and acknowledged that the respondents had no authority to act on private disputes without judicial or administrative determination. No counter-affidavit or evidence was filed to substantiate the claim of the unofficial respondents.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the evolution of possessory rights under Indian jurisprudence, emphasizing that peaceful possession, even if not rooted in title, is a legally recognized interest deserving constitutional protection. The Court cited Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu to affirm that a person in settled possession may retain it against all, including the true owner, unless lawfully dispossessed.
"The rightful owner shall have to take recourse to law."
The Court further relied on H.B. Yogalaya v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court held that no person may be dispossessed without a show-cause notice and hearing, and that principles of natural justice are embedded in Article 21. The Court noted that the state’s role is not to adjudicate private disputes but to ensure that any dispossession occurs only through lawful procedure.
The Court also invoked Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to reinforce that ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable. The absence of any procedural safeguard in this case rendered the interference arbitrary and violative of constitutional norms.
The Court explicitly distinguished between private disputes and state action: while the unofficial respondents may pursue civil remedies, the official respondents have no authority to act as private enforcers.
The Verdict
The petitioners succeeded. The Court held that peaceful possession cannot be disturbed by state authorities without due process of law, and directed the official respondents not to interfere with the petitioners’ possession except in accordance with legal procedure. The order applies only to state actors, leaving private remedies open to the disputing parties.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Possession Is a Constitutional Right
- Practitioners must now treat peaceful possession as a protected interest under Article 300-A, even in the absence of title documents
- Any eviction notice or demolition order issued without notice and hearing is prima facie unconstitutional
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable against state interference in possessory disputes
State Cannot Act as Private Enforcer
- Revenue and police officials cannot act on complaints from private parties without a court order or statutory mandate
- Authorities must refuse to execute private demands unless backed by a valid legal proceeding
- Failure to follow procedure exposes officials to liability for violation of fundamental rights
Natural Justice Is Non-Negotiable
- Show-cause notices and hearings are mandatory before any dispossession, whether for demolition, eviction, or land acquisition
- The burden lies on the state to prove compliance with procedure - not on the possessor to prove innocence
- Courts will strike down administrative action that bypasses procedural safeguards, regardless of the underlying claim
