Eviction of Allottees from Mandi Premises Without Following Due Process Under the Adhiniyam of 1974 is Impermissible.

The petitioner, a trading firm, was allotted a plot by the respondent Mandi Samiti under a registered lease deed dated 19.04.1995, upon which it constructed a shop-cum-godown at its own expense

Upon the expiration of the lease on 30.09.2025 and the shifting of Mandi activities to a new site, the respondent issued communications dated 29.09.2025 and 29.12.2025 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises

The petitioner challenged these orders via a Writ Petition under Article 226, contending that they remained in lawful possession and could not be evicted without due process of law despite the alleged expiration of the lease

1. Whether the respondent Mandi Samiti can evict a leaseholder through administrative directions without following the statutory procedure for eviction

2. Whether the provisions of the M.P. Lok Parishar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974, are applicable to Mandi Samiti premises

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

Division Bench precedent in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Vijaypur v. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 2317/2010), which established that Mandi premises fall under the scope of the 1974 Adhiniyam

Full Bench decision in Meena Agrawal (Smt.) v. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Shivpuri and others (2008 (3) MPLJ 153) to affirm that even unauthorized occupants cannot be dispossessed without following the procedure established by law

The court observed that the petitioner’s entry into the premises was lawful, based on a registered lease deed and significant financial investment in construction

While the respondents argued that the lease had expired, the court held that such expiration does not grant the state the right to use "strong-arm tactics" or mere administrative orders for dispossession

The court reasoned that the impugned communications were arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice because they sought eviction without an adjudication by a competent authority under the 1974 Adhiniyam

The court emphasized that the respondents failed to initiate or conclude any statutory proceedings before issuing the vacation orders, thereby making the action ex-facie illegal

The court held that the respondents are legally obligated to follow the procedure prescribed under the M.P. Lok Parishar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974, to effect any eviction

The matter was remitted to the Competent Authority to initiate proceedings under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam within four weeks, with a direction to decide the matter on merits within a further two weeks after hearing both parties

The court ordered that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed until the statutory procedure is completed and a formal order is passed