Statutory eviction procedures must be followed to dispossess occupants, regardless of lease expiry or unauthorized status.

The petitioner, a partnership firm and license holder of Krishi Upaj Mandi, was allotted a plot via a registered lease deed dated April 3, 1995, upon which it constructed a shop-cum-godown at its own expense

On September 29, 2025, and December 15, 2025, the respondent Mandi Samiti issued communications directing the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over possession

The respondents contended that the lease had expired on July 30, 2015, and since Mandi activities had shifted to new premises, they were entitled to resume possession

The petitioner challenged these orders via a writ petition under Article 226, arguing that they could not be evicted without the due process of law prescribed under the state’s eviction statutes

1. Whether the respondent Mandi Samiti can summarily evict the petitioner through administrative directions without following the statutory procedure for eviction?

2. Whether the M.P. Lok Parishar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974, applies to premises owned by the Mandi Samiti?

The Court primarily applied the M.P. Lok Parishar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974, which mandates a specific quasi-judicial procedure for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from public premises

It relied on the Division Bench precedent in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Vijaypur vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 2317/2010), which held that Mandi premises fall under the purview of the 1974 Adhiniyam

The Court cited the Full Bench decision in Meena Agrawal (Smt.) vs. Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Shivpuri and others (2008 (3) MPLJ 153) to emphasize that even unauthorized occupants cannot be dispossessed without following the procedure established by law

The Court observed that the petitioner’s possession originated from a lawful lease deed and involved significant self-funded construction

Even if the respondents’ contention regarding the expiry of the lease were accepted, the Court held that the respondents are legally obligated to resort to the statutory framework of the 1974 Adhiniyam rather than issuing administrative dictates

The Court reasoned that the impugned communications were arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice because they sought to deprive the petitioner of possession without an adjudication by a competent statutory authority

Since the respondents failed to demonstrate that any proceedings under the 1974 Adhiniyam were initiated or concluded, the summary demand for possession was deemed unsustainable in law

The Court held that the petitioner cannot be dispossessed except by following the due process under the M.P. Lok Parishar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974

The matter was remitted to the Competent Authority to decide the petitioner's application under Section 5 of the Adhiniyam within a specified timeline (four weeks for filing and two weeks for disposal) after affording a hearing to all parties

The Court further ordered that the petitioner shall not be dispossessed until the statutory procedure is completed and a formal order is passed by the competent authority