Eviction warrant issued against the legal heir of a deceased person without hearing quashed for violating natural justice.

The petitioner challenged an eviction warrant dated 27.02.2026 issued by the Tahsildar (Respondent No. 3) regarding a residential house in Durg.

Respondent No. 4 (Bank) had initiated recovery proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, against the petitioner's deceased father, Mohd. Kasim Khan, who passed away on 23.03.2021.

The Collector passed orders for possession on 25.07.2022 and 06.03.2023.

The petitioner contended that the proceedings were vitiated as they were conducted against a dead person, the property was never mortgaged, and he was never granted a hearing.

The State argued the action followed existing orders and a previous High Court direction in W.P.(C) No. 4564/2025.

1. Whether the eviction warrant and underlying SARFAESI proceedings were legally sustainable given they were initiated against a deceased person without notice to the legal heir in possession.

2. Whether the petitioner should be relegated to an alternative remedy or if the matter requires remittance for fresh consideration by the competent authority.

The Court's decision was governed by the principles of Natural Justice (audi alteram partem), which mandate a fair hearing before an adverse order is passed.

The procedural requirements of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, specifically Section 14, regarding the delivery of possession of mortgaged assets.

The court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure "due process of law" is followed before a person is dispossessed of property.

The Court observed that the petitioner raised significant procedural irregularities, primarily that the SARFAESI proceedings and subsequent eviction warrant were directed against a party who had been deceased for nearly five years.

The Court noted that the petitioner, being the current owner in possession and not a party to the original proceedings, was never afforded an opportunity to be heard.

Rather than adjudicating the factual disputes—such as whether the property was actually mortgaged—the Court found that the failure of the competent authority to hear the affected party necessitated a jurisdictional reset.

The Court reasoned that remitting the matter would allow the competent authority to examine these grievances within the framework of the law while maintaining the petitioner's right to due process.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on the merits, remitting the case to the respondent authorities. No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner until a fresh decision is made, provided the petitioner appears before the authority within 15 days of the order.