https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302869 A statutory board cannot resume possession of leased plots by forcible self-help merely because the lease contains a re-entry clause; eviction must follow lawful procedure, and the expression "re-enter" does not authorise extra-judicial dispossession. Contractual disputes over breach, termination, or forfeiture are ordinarily not fit for writ adjudication, but an ex facie illegal dispossession without authority of law may be challenged under Article 226. Even so, discretionary writ relief may be refused where the challenge is delayed and third-party rights have intervened, as laches can bar restoration of possession. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jun 2022 12:50:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302869 A statutory board cannot resume possession of leased plots by forcible self-help merely because the lease contains a re-entry clause; eviction must follow lawful procedure, and the expression "re-enter" does not authorise extra-judicial dispossession. Contractual disputes over breach, termination, or forfeiture are ordinarily not fit for writ adjudication, but an ex facie illegal dispossession without authority of law may be challenged under Article 226. Even so, discretionary writ relief may be refused where the challenge is delayed and third-party rights have intervened, as laches can bar restoration of possession. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302869