A trade licence does not confer any right to occupy Panchayat land.

The petitioners operated shops at Aaderly Street, Dolphin Nose, Burliar Village Panchayat.

They challenged eviction notices dated 7 September 2026, alleging that the notices were illegal and violated natural justice; they sought to prevent their eviction and interference with their businesses

The Panchayat had decided to construct a commercial complex for tourists and, after identifying encroachments during a land survey, issued the notices to remove them

The petitioners contended that they had installed bunk shops and obtained trade licences. The respondent maintained that they had no lease or allotment of the land or shops from the competent authority

Whether the petitioners’ trade licences entitled them to possess or occupy Panchayat land

Whether the challenged eviction notices should be quashed, or the petitioners’ eviction otherwise restrained, in light of their claim that the notices violated natural justice

The Court stated that a trade licence does not confer a right to possess land belonging to the Panchayat.

It also noted that the petitioners were neither lessees nor recipients of an allotment of the land or bunk shops from the competent authority

The judgment does not cite any specific statute or precedent; it addresses the challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution, as invoked in the writ petitions

The Court accepted the Panchayat’s stated purpose of constructing a commercial complex and treated the petitioners’ occupation as encroachment because they had no lease or allotment, notwithstanding their claimed trade licences

It therefore did not quash the notices or grant a restraint against eviction. Instead, it allowed the petitioners one week from receipt of the order to submit representations with supporting documents and directed the Panchayat to consider any representations received before proceeding with enforcement action

It permitted the petitioners to submit representations within one week, which the Panchayat must consider before proceeding to remove the encroachments.

The Court also stated that, if a commercial complex is constructed, the petitioners may participate in a public auction conducted according to law.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed