Eviction proceedings initiated by an unauthorized officer lack jurisdiction and are legally unsustainable.

The Petitioner, a State agency, allotted an industrial plot to a third party in 1991, which was later terminated in 2010 due to lease violations

The Respondent purchased the physical assets on the plot via auction in 2013 but failed to provide a registered sale deed or pay transfer fees to the Petitioner despite multiple reminders

Consequently, an Executive Director of the Petitioner corporation initiated eviction proceedings under the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974, leading to an eviction order in August 2020

The Respondent successfully appealed to the Commissioner, Chambal Division, who set aside the eviction

The Petitioner then filed this writ petition challenging that reversal

1. Whether the Executive Director of the Petitioner corporation possessed the statutory authority to act as the "competent authority" and initiate eviction proceedings under the 1974 Act

2. Whether the cancellation of the original lease was valid given the subsistence of a mortgage, and whether the Respondent could be legally classified as an "unauthorized occupant"

The Court primarily applied the M.P. Lok Parisar (Bedakhali) Adhiniyam, 1974, specifically Section 4(1) regarding the eviction of unauthorized occupants

It relied on the principle of statutory jurisdiction, holding that powers must only be exercised by the specific authority empowered by State Government notification

The Court also referenced Article 226 of the Constitution of India, noting that writ jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent illegalities, jurisdictional errors, or manifest arbitrariness rather than substituting the court’s subjective view for that of an appellate authority

The Court focused on the jurisdictional validity of the initial eviction order. It observed that the relevant State notification from 2001 empowered only the Managing Director and Chief General Managers, not the Executive Director, to act as a competent authority

Since the Petitioner failed to produce evidence of delegated authority for the Executive Director, the Court found the entire proceeding void ab initio for want of jurisdiction

Furthermore, the Court noted substantial legal disputes regarding the Petitioner's right to cancel the lease while a mortgage was active, suggesting that the "unauthorized" status of the Respondent was not clearly established enough to invoke summary eviction

The Court concluded that the appellate authority's decision was reasonable and did not meet the threshold for interference under writ jurisdiction

The Court held that the eviction order was unsustainable because it was passed by an official lacking statutory competence and involved unresolved foundational questions regarding the legality of the lease termination

The Petitioner failed to establish any patent error or perversity in the appellate authority's findings