Violation of natural justice occurs when ex-parte eviction orders ignore a party's inability to appear due to judicial custody.

The petitioner, Padam Sethiya, claimed possession of a 0.40-hectare plot in Village Markel for 40–50 years

Eviction proceedings under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, were initiated by Respondent No. 6 alleging encroachment

The Naib Tahsildar passed an ex parte eviction order on 03.09.2025 because the petitioner failed to appear during the proceedings

The petitioner contended that his absence was due to being in judicial custody at the time

Despite raising this ground and providing evidence from bail proceedings (MCRC No. 4036/2018), the SDO, Commissioner, and Board of Revenue upheld the eviction order

The petitioner subsequently filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the eviction orders passed by the revenue authorities violated the principles of natural justice due to the petitioner’s inability to appear while in judicial custody

2. Whether the failure of the appellate and revisional authorities to consider the specific ground of judicial custody as "sufficient cause" for non-appearance vitiates the proceedings

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem), emphasizing that a party must be afforded an "adequate opportunity" to defend their case

Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which governs the summary eviction of persons in unauthorized possession of land

The doctrine that "sufficient cause" for non-appearance, such as incarceration, must be judicially considered by authorities when exercising quasi-judicial functions

The Court observed that the petitioner had consistently raised the plea of being in judicial custody before the SDO, the Commissioner, and the Board of Revenue

It noted that this contention was supported by court records from MCRC proceedings

The High Court reasoned that since the petitioner was physically prevented from attending hearings due to legal detention, he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present his defense

The Court found that the lower revenue authorities failed to address this "vital ground" in their orders, focusing instead on the fact that the petitioner had initially filed a reply

The High Court determined that failure to consider a plausible explanation for non-appearance (judicial custody) goes to the "root of compliance" with natural justice, thereby rendering the subsequent confirmation of the ex parte order legally unsustainable

The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders of the Naib Tahsildar (03.09.2025), SDO (03.07.2023), Commissioner (24.01.2025), and Board of Revenue (30.05.2025). The matter was remitted back to the competent Tahsildar to decide the case afresh after providing a full opportunity of hearing to all parties