Eviction from Mandi premises without following the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam procedure is impermissible.

The petitioner, a licensed trading firm, was allotted a plot by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Ganj Basoda, via a registered lease deed dated 12.11.2009.

The petitioner constructed a shop-cum-godown on the plot at its own expense.

On 29.09.2025 and 29.12.2025, the respondent Mandi Samiti issued communications directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over possession.

The respondents contended that the lease expired on 30.09.2025 and, following the shifting of Mandi activities to new premises, they were entitled to resume possession.

The petitioner challenged these orders, seeking protection against dispossession without due process.

1. Whether the respondent Mandi Samiti can forcibly evict a lessee whose lease has allegedly expired without following the statutory procedure for eviction.

2. Whether the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974, applies to premises owned by the Mandi Samiti.

The M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974, prescribes the mandatory legal procedure for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises.

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

The Full Bench decision in Meena Agrawal (Smt.) vs. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Shivpuri, 2008 (3) MPLJ 153, reinforcing the requirement for due process in administrative evictions.

The court reasoned that even if the petitioner’s lease had expired or their occupation was deemed unauthorized, the respondents cannot bypass the "due process of law".

The court observed that the respondents attempted to effect eviction through mere administrative communications rather than resorting to the quasi-judicial mechanism provided under the Adhiniyam of 1974.

The court found that because the structure was built by the petitioner and they remained in settled possession, any summary eviction via administrative order is ex-facie illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice, as it lacks adjudication by a competent statutory authority.

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned communications dated 29.09.2025 and 29.12.2025, and remitted the matter to the Competent Authority to initiate proceedings under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam within four weeks, protecting the petitioner from dispossession until the statutory procedure is concluded.