Eviction notices for alleged encroachment stayed pending hearing and clearance of outstanding rent under residential allotment.

The petitioner, a retired employee of the M.P. Electricity Board, was allotted a residential plot (Land No. 107, Category “Sirish”, 1500 sq. ft.) in Raigarh under a Government scheme for employees

He was granted a Bhawan Bhumiswami Adhikar Patra and has resided in a constructed house on the site for 30–40 years, paying municipal taxes and utility bills

On 19.01.2026 and 16.02.2026, the Tahsildar (Nazul) issued eviction notices alleging the petitioner is an encroacher

The State contended that the petitioner failed to comply with allotment conditions, specifically the payment of rent

The petitioner challenged these notices via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

1. Whether the eviction notices issued by the respondent authorities were arbitrary and lacked the observance of principles of natural justice

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection against eviction based on his long-standing possession and the Bhawan Bhumiswami Adhikar Patra

The court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the judicial review of administrative actions

It applied the principle of Audi Alteram Partem (right to be heard), ensuring that an occupant with a prima facie title (the Adhikar Patra) cannot be summarily evicted without a reasoned order

The court also balanced the contractual obligations of the allottee (payment of rent) against the state's power of eviction

The court observed a conflict between the petitioner’s claim of lawful title via the Bhawan Bhumiswami Adhikar Patra and the State’s claim of breach of allotment conditions (non-payment of rent)

The court reasoned that since the petitioner has been in settled possession for several decades and possesses an allotment document, the respondent authority (Tahsildar/Nazul Officer) is legally obligated to provide a fair hearing and consider the petitioner's evidence before labeling him an "encroacher"

The court also noted that the petitioner’s right to remain is conditional upon fulfilling the financial obligations (rent) of the original allotment

Consequently, the court determined that a speaking order must be passed to bridge the gap between the administrative allegation of encroachment and the petitioner's claim of legal right

The Court held that the petitioner is obligated to clear outstanding rent as per the allotment terms

Crucially, the Court ordered that no coercive steps or eviction shall be taken until a final decision is reached, provided the petitioner deposits/pays the outstanding rent amount