JOHRA & ORS.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

970                SUPREME[2018]
                           COURT 14REPORTS
                                   S.C.R. 970              [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A                               JOHRA & ORS.
                                        v.
                        STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal Nos. 11757-11758 of 2018)
B                            DECEMBER 03, 2018
      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
             Natural Justice: Opportunity of hearing – Allegation of
      unauthorised encroachment of the appellants over the land of Gram
      Panchayat – Writ petition filed by respondent no.8 – High Court
C
      observed that it was not necessary to issue any notice to any of the
      private respondents except to the State and its authorities considering
      the nature of the order they intended to pass for disposal of writ
      petition and disposed of writ petition with direction to the Deputy
      Commissioner to obtain a report from a fact finding inquiry regarding
D     unauthorized encroachment of the appellants and to restore the said
      land to the Gram Panchayat with police help – Aggrieved private
      respondents of writ petition filed these appeals – Held: Principle of
      natural justice demands that the party to the proceedings must be
      heard by the Court before passing any order in relation to the subject
      matter of such proceedings – In this case, the High Court issued
E
      some mandatory directions to the State in relation to the subject-
      matter of the proceedings but it was done without hearing the
      appellants (respondents in the writ petition before the High Court)
      – For the said reason, the impugned order is set aside – Parties to
      raise all their pleas before the High Court to enable it to decide in
F     accordance with law.
           Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court,
      the Court
             HELD : The basic fundamental principle of law that no order
      can be passed by any Court in any judicial proceedings against
G     any party to such proceedings without hearing and giving such
      party an opportunity of hearing. The fact that a person is made a
      party to the judicial proceedings in relation to a certain dispute
      has a legitimate right to raise an objection that before passing
      any order in such proceedings, he should be at least heard and
H     his views/stand in relation to the subject matter of the proceedings
                                       970
         OHRA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                              971


be taken into consideration. The Court is duty bound to hear all             A
such person(s) by giving them an opportunity to place their stand.
In this case, the High Court issued some mandatory directions
to the State in relation to the subject-matter of the proceedings
but it was done without hearing the appellants(respondents in
the writ petition before the High Court). It is for this reason, the
                                                                             B
impugned order is set aside. It is for the parties to raise all their
pleas before the High Court to enable it to decide in accordance
with law. [Paras 8, 10, 11, 13][972-F-G; 973-A-D]
      Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal AIR 1955 SC 425 :
      [1955] SCR 1 – relied on
                                                                             C
                        Case Law Reference
[1955] SCR 1                      relied on                Para 9
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11757-
11758 of 2018.
                                                                             D
      From the Judgment and Order dated 16.05.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 9512 of 2016 and
order dated 21.10.2016 in RA-CW-312 of 2016.
      V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Devashish Bharuka, Vikram Punia,, Advs. for
the Appellants.
                                                                             E
      Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv., Kaushal Yadav, Nandlal Kumar
Mishra, Dr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Pramod Kumar, Ms. Shweta Yadav,
Ms. Sunita Yadav, Ms. Ankita Yadav, Deepak Thukral, Saurabh Sachdeva,
Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Manpreet Kaur Bhalla, Rishi Malhotra, Utkarsh
Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
                                                                             F
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
      1. Leave granted.
       2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order       G
dated 16.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh in C.W.P. No.9512 of 2016 whereby the Division Bench of
the High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by respondent No.8
herein with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat to obtain a
report from a fact finding inquiry regarding the unauthorized encroachment
                                                                             H
972                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 14 S.C.R.


A     of the appellants herein over the land of the Gram Panchayat and to
      restore the said land to the Gram Panchayat with police help. Against
      the said order, the appellants herein filed review petition which was
      dismissed by the High Court by order dated 21.10.2016 in RA-CW-312
      of 2016 in CWP No.9512/2016.
B           3. Few facts need mention infra for the disposal of these appeals.
             4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that it was not in dispute that
      the High Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by respondent
      No.8 herein against the appellants and State issued certain mandatory
      directions to the State Authorities in respect of the subject matter of the
C     writ petition for their compliance. It is also not in dispute that the
      appellants were arrayed in the said writ petition (No.9512 of 2016) as
      respondent Nos. 8 to 80.
             5. Indeed, we also find that the High Court also observed (see
      page 2 of the impugned order) that they do not deem it necessary to
D     issue any notice to any of the private respondents except to the State
      and its Authorities considering the nature of the order they intend to pass
      for the disposal of the writ petition.
             6. Against this order, the private respondent Nos. 8 to 80 of the
      writ petition have felt aggrieved and filed these appeals by way of special
E     leave in this Court.
            7. Though learned counsel for the parties made lengthy submissions
      on merits of the case in support of their respective stands but keeping in
      view the admitted fact emerging from the record of the proceedings that
      the impugned order was passed without hearing the present appellants
F     despite they being party respondents in the writ petition, we are of the
      considered view that the impugned order is not legally sustainable.
            8. We may reiterate the basic fundamental principle of law that
      no order can be passed by any Court in any judicial proceedings against
      any party to such proceedings without hearing and giving such party an
      opportunity of hearing.
G
             9. Principle of natural justice demands that the party to the
      proceedings must be heard by the Court before passing any order in
      relation to the subject matter of such proceedings (see observations of
      an eminent Judge - Vivian Bose in Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal
      (AIR 1955 SC 425).
H
          OHRA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                                    973
               [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       10. The fact that a person is made a party to the judicial                   A
proceedings in relation to a certain dispute has a legitimate right to raise
an objection that before passing any order in such proceedings, he should
be at least heard and his views/stand in relation to the subject matter of
the proceedings be taken into consideration. The Court is duty bound to
hear all such person(s) by giving them an opportunity to place their stand.
                                                                                    B
       11. In this case, we find that the High Court issued some mandatory
directions to the State in relation to the subject-matter of the proceedings
but it was done without hearing the appellants(respondents in the writ
petition before the High Court). It is for this reason, we are unable to
uphold the impugned order.
                                                                                    C
        12. We have not set out the entire factual dispute which led to
filing of the writ petition, nor set out the stand taken by the parties against
each other before the High Court and nor dealt with any factual issues
arising in the case though argued vehemently by both the learned counsel
against each other.
                                                                                    D
      13. In our view, it is for the parties to raise all their pleas before
the High Court to enable it to decide in accordance with law. We,
therefore, express no opinion on any of the pleas.
       14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and
are accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The writ petition,            E
out of which these appeals arise, is restored to its original number before
the High Court.
        15. Let the writ petition be decided by the High Court after hearing
all the parties in accordance with law. Since the matter relates to a large
piece of the land, it must be disposed of within six months from the date           F
of this order without allowing any party to seek any adjournment.

Devika Gujral                                      Matter remitted to High Court.



                                                                                    G




                                                                                    H