Eviction from Mandi premises must strictly follow procedure under M.P. Lok Parishar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974.

The petitioner, a licensed trading firm, was allotted a plot by the respondent Mandi Samiti under a registered lease deed dated 27.01.1995, upon which it constructed a shop-cum-godown at its own expense.

Following the relocation of Mandi activities to new premises, the respondents issued communications dated 29.09.2025 and 15.12.2025 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises, asserting that the lease expired on 30.09.2025.

The petitioner challenged these orders via a Writ Petition under Article 226, contending that they were in lawful possession and could not be evicted without due process of law.

M.P. Lok Parishar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974, specifically Section 5, which prescribes the statutory procedure for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises

Division Bench precedent in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Vijaypur vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 2317/2010), which established that eviction from Mandi premises must strictly follow the 1974 Adhiniyam

Full Bench decision in Meena Agrawal (Smt.) vs. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Shivpuri and others (2008 (3) MPLJ 153) regarding the necessity of due process

The Court reasoned that even if the petitioner’s lease had expired or their occupation was deemed unauthorized, the respondents cannot bypass the rule of law by issuing unilateral administrative directions for dispossession.

The Court observed that the respondent Mandi Samiti is a "public authority" under the 1974 Adhiniyam, and any eviction must involve a formal adjudication by a Competent Authority where the occupant is afforded an opportunity to be heard.

The Court found the impugned communications to be ex-facie illegal and arbitrary because they sought to deprive the petitioner of possession without initiating the mandatory statutory proceedings under the Adhiniyam.

Relying on settled judicial principles, the Court held that the State and its instrumentalities must act fairly and follow the "due process of law" before interfering with a person's possession.

The Court granted the respondents liberty to proceed according to law but restrained them from dispossessing the petitioner until a final order is passed by the competent authority.

It held that the petitioner cannot be dispossessed except by following the procedure established under the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974.