The State cannot dispossess a lawful lessee without following due process of law.

Tilaso (petitioner in WPC 80/2023) was granted a lease/patta for the subject land

She alleged that private respondents were attempting to construct a market on her leased land without legal authority, despite an existing status quo order

Conversely, the private respondents (petitioners in WPC 744/2023) contended that they had already moved an application before the Collector for the cancellation of Tilaso’s lease, which is currently pending

Both parties sought High Court intervention regarding the possession and the validity of the lease

1. Whether the private respondents can interfere with the possession of a lessee whose patta has not yet been cancelled by a competent authority

2. Whether the High Court should adjudicate upon the validity of a lease while an application for its cancellation is sub judice before the competent revenue authority

The Court applied the principle of "due process of law," establishing that a person in settled possession under a validly granted lease/patta cannot be dispossessed or interfered with unless the lease is formally cancelled by a competent authority in accordance with statutory procedures

doctrine of exhaustion of alternative remedies and administrative hierarchy, recognizing the Collector’s jurisdiction to decide the validity of a lease/patta under the relevant revenue laws

The Court observed that Tilaso remains the lawful lessee and is in settled possession, as her patta has not been set aside by any competent authority

The Court reasoned that since the matter regarding the cancellation of the lease is already pending before the Collector, it would be inappropriate for the writ court to pass a final order on the merits of the patta at this stage

The Court emphasized that administrative justice requires the Collector to decide the matter after hearing both parties, but until such a decision is rendered, the status of the lessee must be protected from extra-judicial interference

The petitions were disposed of with the following directions: (i) the parties are relegated to the competent Collector to pursue the cancellation application; (ii) the Collector must decide the application expeditiously after hearing all concerned parties; and (iii) until a final decision is reached, the State and private respondents are restrained from taking coercive steps or dispossessing Tilaso, except by due process of law