Municipal authorities cannot dispossess a party in settled possession except through due process of law.

The appellant, a society representing Maruthi Temple, sued BBMP officials for a permanent injunction against interference with its possession of a 26 × 47-foot site and demolition of the temple structure.

It claimed possession since 1980–81 and relied on BBMP-issued possession, khatha and tax documents.

BBMP contended that the site belonged to it and that the appellant’s use was conditional; the fourth respondent also asserted that a community hall had been constructed on the site.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, and the appellant appealed.

1. Whether a party recorded as a lessee or permissive occupant, but in settled possession, may be protected against forcible or summary dispossession by the municipal authority.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s dismissal should be modified to require BBMP to follow due process before resuming possession or removing structures.

A tenant, lessee or other person in settled possession cannot be dispossessed, or have a structure demolished, by force or coercive administrative action without due process of law.

A municipal authority seeking to resume possession or remove an allegedly unauthorised structure must proceed under applicable law, including by issuing appropriate notice, providing an opportunity of hearing and passing a formal order.

The BBMP possession certificate, khatha documents and tax receipts supported the appellant’s possession, while the khatha recorded it as a lessee and the Court treated its occupation as permissive.

That status did not confer an absolute right against the owner or prevent lawful resumption. However, it did entitle the appellant to protection against extra-judicial dispossession.

Because the respondents could remove the structure or resume the property only through lawful statutory proceedings, the Trial Court erred in refusing all protection.

BBMP respondents 1–3 and persons acting under them were permanently restrained from interfering with the appellant’s peaceful possession or demolishing existing structures, except by following due process of law; the appellant may be dispossessed in accordance with law.