Settled Possession Entitles Occupant To Protection Against Forcible Eviction Even By Local Authorities: Madhya Pradesh High Court

 "The law will come to the aid of a person in peaceful and settled possession by injuncting even a rightful owner from using force or taking the law in his own hands, and also by restoring him in possession even from the rightful owner." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling, held that a person in "settled possession" of a property cannot be forcibly dispossessed by a Gram Panchayat, regardless of disputes regarding title or lease validity, without strictly adhering to the due process of law.

A bench of Justice Vinay Saraf observed that even where a local authority claims encroachment, it must pursue legal channels rather than resorting to extra-judicial demolition.

The appellant (plaintiff) had filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction after the Gram Panchayat attempted to demolish his shop and house, claiming he had encroached upon the land. While the plaintiff asserted he held a perpetual lease and construction permission from a former Administrator, the defendants contended these documents were forged and the occupation was unauthorized. The trial court initially granted a permanent injunction, which was later reversed by the First Appellate Court on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prove his title.

The primary question before the court was whether, in the absence of specific provisions under the M.P. Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, an occupant could be evicted without a formal civil suit for possession. Additionally, the court examined whether the construction of a permanent structure created equitable rights that necessitated due process before removal.

Court Reaffirms Doctrine of Settled Possession

The Court placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rame Gowda v. M. Varadappa Naidu, emphasizing that settled possession entitles an occupant to defend their position against even a rightful owner. The Court observed that "settled possession" requires the occupation to be effective, undisturbed, and to the knowledge of the owner.

Limits of Gram Panchayat’s Power Under Section 56

The bench clarified that Section 56 of the Adhiniyam, 1993, does not empower a Gram Panchayat to bypass legal safeguards. Even if a body determines an encroachment exists, it must follow the prescribed statutory procedure, which involves referring the matter to the Tehsildar for action under the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.

"The Gram Panchayat cannot straight away take action to remove the alleged encroachment and it is essential for the Gram Panchayat to take action in accordance with the provisions of Section 56 of the Adhiniyam, 1993."

No Arbitrary Power of Eviction

The Court noted that the plaintiff had been in established possession and was operating a business for years, supported by electric connections and prior administrative permissions. The bench held that even if the original lease were found to be improperly granted, the local authority cannot adopt a "might is right" approach to demolish existing structures.

Due Process is Mandatory

The High Court held that the First Appellate Court erred by prioritizing the alleged lack of title over the established principle that possession must be protected until the law intervenes. By allowing the Gram Panchayat to act unilaterally, the appellate court had effectively ignored the procedural mandates governing the removal of encroachments.

"Under the provisions of Adhiniyam, 1993, the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed from the disputed premises without following the due course of law."

The High Court ultimately set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restored the trial court's decree, ensuring the plaintiff’s protection against forcible dispossession. This ruling underscores that administrative authorities must seek a judicial or quasi-judicial order before evicting occupants who have achieved a state of settled possession.

Date of Decision: 22 September 2026