Eviction without notice and hearing violates the principles of natural justice.

The appellants challenged a Single Judge’s order directing them to submit representations to the competent authority but granting no protection against proposed eviction and demolition.

The dispute concerned a 400-square-foot portion of Survey No. 155/1/2, which the appellants claimed had been allotted by the Gram Panchayat; the record referred to a Panchayat resolution, payment receipt, land certificate, and building permission.

Revenue authorities treated the occupation as illegal and ordered eviction on 19 August 2026. The appellants maintained that they had not received notice or an opportunity to be heard before that order was made.

The Single Judge directed a representation and an inquiry into the Panchayat officials’ conduct, but did not stay demolition.

The appellants brought these consolidated appeals seeking protection pending determination of their claims.

Whether the eviction order could stand when it was made without notice or an opportunity for the appellants to be heard.

Whether the appellants were entitled to protection from coercive eviction or demolition while the competent authority considered their claims to the land.

The Court proceeded on the principle of natural justice that a person should receive a fair opportunity to be heard before an order with serious civil consequences, including loss of possession and livelihood, is made.

It also exercised its intra-court appellate jurisdiction under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

The Court found that the appellants had relied on official Panchayat documents and had been in long-standing possession, while the revenue record showed that no notice had been served before the eviction order.

Although the State disputed the Panchayat’s authority to allot government land, the Court considered the appellants third parties who had acted on the permissions issued to them. In those circumstances, the eviction order could not stand without a fair hearing and independent assessment of their claims.

The Court balanced that protection against the State’s public-land interests by directing the Collector to assess whether the land was needed for a specific public purpose.

The District Collector must hear both sides and issue a reasoned decision; if the land is not required for a specific public purpose or beneficial public use, the Collector must consider allotment to the appellants in light of their long possession and livelihood.

If the land is required for public purpose, the Collector must give reasons in a speaking order. No coercive action or demolition may be undertaken against the shops until that decision is made, and the appellants’ peaceful possession must be protected in the meantime.

The State remains free to take departmental action against the Panchayat officials responsible for the unauthorised allotment.