RAM RATTAN AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 232 · Decided: 26-11-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
232 
RAM RATTAN AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
November 26, 1976 
[P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, 
JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, S.' 441, on acco111plishme111 of possession of property by 
trespasser, whether true owner entitled to dispossess him and plead right to 
private defence. 
~ 
The complainant Ram Khelawan had illegally encroached upon a portion of 
a public road and grown a paddy crop on it. 
A complaint against him was 
pending before the Panchayat. He was in peaceful possession of the land to the 
knowledge of the appellants who nevertheless went armed and tried to exercise 
their right over the public road, by passing through the field with their calltle 
and thereby damaging the crop. 
The complainants protested and a fight en-
sued, as a result of which, one of the complainants' party died and 
injurie~ 
were received by both sides. 
The appellants pleaded the 
right of 
private 
defence of property and person, which they had exceeded, but were concurrently 
found guilty by both, the Trial Court and the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal the Oourt, 
HELD : (1) A true owner has every ri~ht to dispossess or throw out a tres-
passer while he is in the act or process of trespassing but this right is not avail-
able to the true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his 
possession to the knowledge of the true owner. In such circumstances the law 
requires that the true owner should dispossess the trespasser by taking recourse 
E 
to the remedies under, the law. 
[235 F-G, 236 A] 
F 
Pura11 Singh & Ore. v. State of Punjab [1975] Supp, S.C.R. 299, applied. 
The Court further observed : 
It is a peculiar feature of our criminal law that where 
a 
trespasser 
has 
succeeded in taking recent wrongful possession of the property vested in the 
public for common enjoyment, the members of the village or the real owner 
are not entitled in law to throw out the trespasser but have to take recourse 
to the legal remedies available, and if any member of the public tries to secure 
public property from the possession of the trespasser he is normally 
visited 
with the onerous penalty of law. 
[233i /\-BJ 
(2) The complainant Ram Khela wan was in peaceful possession of the land 
to the knowledge of the appellants and he was in law entitled to defend his 
possession. 
The appellants who were the aggressors and 
had 
opened 
the 
assault, could not .claim any right of private defence 
either of person 
or 
G 
property. 
[237 A-BJ 
H 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 282: 
of 1971. 
(Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and 
12-4-1971 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal 
1909/68). 
S. K. Mehta, for the appellants. 
Order dated 
Appeal No. 
D. P. Uniyal and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent. 
_, i_ 
RAM RATTAN v. u. P. STATE (Fazal Ali, !.) 
233 
R. L. Kohli, for the Intervener. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL ALI, J. It is a peculiar feature of our criminal law t~at 
where a trespasser has succeeded in taking recent wrongful possess10n 
of the property vested in the public for common enjoyment, the meni-
bers of the village or the real owner are not entitled in law to throw 
out the trespasser but have to take recourse to the legal remedi~s 
available, and if any member of the public tries to secure public 
property from the possession of the trespasser he is normally visited 
with the onerous penalty of law. 
This is what appears to have hap-
pened in this appeal by special leave in which the appeUants appear 
to have got themselves involved in an armed conflict with the prose-
cution party resulting in the death of the deceased, injuries to some 
of the prosecution · witnesses and injuries to three of the accused 
themselves. 
The prosecution case in short is that on July 18, 1966, at about 
7-30 to 8-00 in the morning when Ram Khelawan and his companions 
were removing weeds from the paddy crop sown by them in the field 
which included a portion of the Chak Road which had recently been 
encroached by the complainantis' party and amalgamated with their 
fields, Ram Ratan and Ram Samujh armed with lathis and Din Bandhu 
and Ram Sajiwan carrying a ballam and Biroo respectively entered 
the field of Ram Khelawan with their bullocks and insited on passing 
through the field along with their bullocks, which according to them 
was a public road. 
The complainants protested against the high-
handed action of the party o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.