Constitution of India — Article 226 — Writ of Mandamus — Eviction from commercial establishment — Action by National Highways Authority of India — Due process — Principles of natural justice — Mandatory compliance. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Eviction without following procedure — Impermissibility — Protection of possession pending due process.

advocatemmmohan

Constitution of India — Article 226 — Writ of Mandamus — Eviction from commercial establishment — Action by National Highways Authority of India — Due process — Principles of natural justice — Mandatory compliance.

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Eviction without following procedure — Impermissibility — Protection of possession pending due process.

Held:
Respondents restrained from interfering with petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of hotel establishment without adhering to principles of natural justice and without following due process prescribed under the Act of 2013.
(Paras 5 & 6)

---

FACTS (As emerging from the Judgment)

1. The petitioner was running a hotel by name “Reddamma Tiffin Centre” at Kaza Toll Plaza, Venkat Reddy Palem, Kaza Village, Mangalagiri Mandal, on National Highway No.16, for about 20 years. (Para 3)

2. On 10.01.2025, the 2nd respondent along with staff visited the petitioner’s hotel and attempted to evict the petitioner from the premises. (Para 3)

3. When the petitioner opposed the said action, the respondents left the premises; however, on 16.01.2025, respondent Nos.2 and 3, accompanied by police personnel, again visited the hotel and repeated the same action. (Para 3)

4. The petitioner requested the respondents to follow due process of law under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 3)

5. Aggrieved by the repeated attempts of eviction without due process, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. (Para 3)

---

RELIEF SOUGHT

The petitioner sought issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in evicting the petitioner from the hotel establishment as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice, and to restrain the respondents from evicting the petitioner without following due process of law. (Para 1)

---

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

Petitioner

The petitioner contended that the respondents were attempting to evict her without following the procedure prescribed under the Act of 2013, and that such action was unlawful. (Para 3)

Respondents (NHAI)

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the respondents will follow due process of law as prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 4)

---

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION

Whether the respondents could interfere with the petitioner’s possession and evict her from the hotel establishment without adhering to principles of natural justice and without following due process under the Act of 2013.

---

ANALYSIS & REASONING OF THE COURT

1. The Court considered the submissions of both sides and noted the petitioner’s grievance regarding repeated attempts of eviction without statutory procedure. (Para 5)

2. The Court took note of the submission made on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that due process under the Act of 2013 would be followed. (Para 4)

3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Court held that interference with the petitioner’s possession could not be permitted without adhering to principles of natural justice and without following due process prescribed under the Act of 2013. (Para 5)

---

FINAL ORDER / DIRECTIONS

1. The respondents were directed not to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property without adhering to principles of natural justice. (Para 5)

2. The respondents were further directed to follow the due process as prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. (Para 5)

3. The writ petition was disposed of with the above directions. (Para 6)

4. No order as to costs.

5. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, were ordered to stand closed. (Para 6)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Authorities cannot evict a person from a commercial establishment without adhering to principles of natural justice and without following the due process prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.