A bona fide occupant cannot be evicted without notice and a fair hearing.

The appellants claimed possession of portions of Survey No. 155/1/2 under allotments made by Gram Panchayat, Manchla.

In the principal appeal, the appellant relied on a Panchayat resolution dated 14 April 2016, payment of ₹3,500, a land certificate, and building permission granted in 2017; he had constructed a shop from which he carried on his business

Revenue authorities treated the land as government land and, after initiating proceedings, ordered eviction on 19 August 2026 and scheduled demolition for 5 October 2026.

The appellant maintained that he had not been served with notice or heard

The Single Judge directed the appellants to make representations but did not stay the demolition

The appellants challenged that decision, seeking protection pending consideration of their claims

1. Whether the eviction order could stand when the appellants were allegedly not given notice or an opportunity to be heard, despite the claimed Panchayat allotments and related documents

2. Whether the appellants should be protected from eviction or demolition while the competent authority considers their claims and determines the status and use of the land

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of a fair opportunity of hearing before an administrative decision causing serious civil consequences is made

It also referred to the appellants’ asserted protections under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, including the effect of eviction on livelihood

The appeals were brought under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005

No judicial precedent was cited; the Court’s directions also required the Collector to consider whether the land was needed for a specific public purpose or beneficial public use

The Court considered the appellants’ possession alongside the Panchayat-issued allotment and permission documents and found that they had acted bona fide on official documents, even if the Panchayat may have lacked authority to allot government land

The revenue record showed that notice had not been served; because eviction affected the appellants’ livelihood, the Court held that the eviction order could not stand without a hearing

It therefore directed an independent, reasoned consideration by the Collector, while preserving the State’s ability to proceed against the Panchayat officials responsible for any unauthorized allotment

It directed the District Collector to hear the parties and pass a reasoned order on the appellants’ applications

If the land was not required for a specific public purpose or beneficial public use, the Collector was to consider allotment to the appellants as a special case, taking account of their long possession and livelihood; if the land was required for public purpose, the Collector was to give reasons in a speaking order

Until that decision, no coercive action or demolition was to be taken against the shops, and the appellants’ peaceful possession was to be protected

The State remained free to take departmental action against the Panchayat officials