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 - Apex court held that in this case, we find that the High Court issued some mandatory directions to the State in relation to the subjectmatter 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.- remanded the case giving liberty to raise their pleas before High Court.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1175711758 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 34493450 of 2017)
Johra & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final
judgment and order 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
1
the unauthorized encroachment 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 RACW312
of 2016 in CWP No.9512/2016.
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 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.
2
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 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 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
despite they being party respondents in the writ
3
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.
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).
10. 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 his views/stand in
4
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.
11. In this case, we find that the High Court
issued some mandatory directions to the State in
relation to the subjectmatter 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.
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.
5
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, 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 of this order without allowing any
party to seek any adjournment.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 03, 2018
6
to such proceedings without hearing and giving such party an opportunity of hearing - Apex court held that in this case, we find that the High Court issued some mandatory directions to the State in relation to the subjectmatter 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.- remanded the case giving liberty to raise their pleas before High Court.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1175711758 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos. 34493450 of 2017)
Johra & Ors. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
State of Haryana & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final
judgment and order 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
1
the unauthorized encroachment 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 RACW312
of 2016 in CWP No.9512/2016.
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 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.
2
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 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 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
despite they being party respondents in the writ
3
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.
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).
10. 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 his views/stand in
4
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.
11. In this case, we find that the High Court
issued some mandatory directions to the State in
relation to the subjectmatter 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.
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.
5
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, 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 of this order without allowing any
party to seek any adjournment.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 03, 2018
6
