Possession of land cannot be deprived except by following due process of law.

The petitioner challenged two orders: one dated 07.01.2025 by the Collector, Sheopur, transferring 7.420 hectares of land to the Public Health Engineering Department for a Water Purification Plant, and another dated 27.05.2026 by the Commissioner, Chambal Division, rejecting his representation against said transfer.

The petitioner claims he was lawfully allotted a portion of this land (0.940 hectares) in 1996.

He alleges that his patta (land title) was cancelled suo motu in 2001 without notice or a hearing.

Currently, an appeal against the 2001 cancellation is pending before the Commissioner, and a civil suit for declaration and injunction is pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Vijaypur.

Despite these pending adjudications and a report confirming his actual physical possession, the Tehsildar issued an order on 19.05.2026 directing his dispossession.

1. Whether the High Court should adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact regarding the legality of land allotment and title cancellation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Whether the respondents can dispossess an occupant of land without following the due process of law while title disputes are sub judice.

The court applied the fundamental principle of the Rule of Law and Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the limits of extraordinary writ jurisdiction over disputed facts.

It emphasized the settled legal principle that no person can be deprived of possession of property except in accordance with the "procedure established by law" and the "due process" prescribed under relevant statutory provisions.

The Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the title dispute, noting that the legality of the 2001 cancellation and the rival claims are already being litigated in competent revenue and civil forums.

It held that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate venue for resolving such intricate disputed questions of fact.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner's possession was supported by a spot inspection report dated 21.02.2025, any eviction must strictly adhere to statutory requirements, including providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

The competent authorities were directed to proceed strictly in accordance with applicable statutes and afford the petitioner a proper hearing before taking any coercive action; All other issues remain open for decision by the pending civil and revenue proceedings.