LTR eviction orders cannot be enforced through dispossession without following due process of law.

The petitioners claimed ownership and possession of lands situated at Gate Karepalle Village, Singareni Mandal, Khammam District, comprising Ac.0.24 in Sy.No.207, Ac.2.05 guntas in Sy.No.467 and land in Sy.No.476.

On the basis of a representation alleging prohibited transactions between non-tribals, proceedings were initiated under the Telangana Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1970 (“LTR Regulations”). The competent authority found a contravention of Section 3(1) of the LTR Regulations and directed that the lands be taken into Government custody through a panchanama and assigned to eligible landless poor tribals.

The petitioners’ appeal was dismissed, following which they filed a statutory revision before the Special Chief Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, which remained pending.

Apprehending dispossession before disposal of the revision, the petitioners filed the present writ petition seeking protection of their possession and a direction to decide the revision.

The State submitted that no steps had yet been taken to evict the petitioners and that any eviction would be carried out only in accordance with due process of law.

Whether the respondent-authorities could interfere with or dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands pursuant to the LTR proceedings without following the prescribed due process of law.

Whether the pending statutory revision warranted protection of the petitioners’ possession until the respondents adopted lawful eviction procedures.

Whether the Court should decide the merits of the petitioners’ challenge to the LTR orders at the admission stage.

The Court applied Section 3(1) of the Telangana Scheduled Area Land Transfer Regulation, 1970, under which prohibited transfers in Scheduled Areas may be invalidated and possession may be restored in accordance with the Regulation.

It considered Rule 7(4) of the LTR Regulations, which, as interpreted in Mamillapalli Chinakoteswara Rao v. Mandal Revenue Officer, 2005 (5) ALD 126, requires an order restoring possession to be executed in the manner of a decree for ejectment passed by a Civil Court.

The governing principle applied by the Court was that administrative or statutory orders affecting possession cannot be enforced by extra-legal means; dispossession must follow due process of law.

The Court, however, expressly refrained from deciding the merits of the parties’ claims.

The petitioners contended that the authorities intended to take possession through a panchanama without initiating execution proceedings or otherwise following the procedure contemplated by Rule 7(4) of the LTR Regulations.

Although the Court did not determine whether the underlying LTR orders were legally correct, the State’s submission that no eviction had yet occurred and that any future action would comply with due process removed the need for a broader adjudication at that stage.

Relying on that assurance and without expressing an opinion on the merits, the Court protected the petitioners against interference with the subject property except through lawful procedure.

The Court directed the respondent-authorities not to interfere with the petitioners’ subject property in any manner without following due process of law.

The Court did not decide the validity of the LTR orders, the petitioners’ title or possession, or the merits of the pending revision.

No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous applications were closed.