Supreme Court of India
JOHRA & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. on 3 December 2018
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.[2018] 14 S.C.R. 970
A
JOHRA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11757-11758 of 2018)
BDECEMBER 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Natural Justice: Opportunity of hearing – Allegation ofunauthorised encroachment of the appellants over the land of GramPanchayat – Writ petition filed by respondent no.8 – High CourtCobserved that it was not necessary to issue any notice to any of theprivate respondents except to the State and its authorities consideringthe nature of the order they intended to pass for disposal of writpetition and disposed of writ petition with direction to the DeputyCommissioner to obtain a report from a fact finding inquiry regardingDunauthorized encroachment of the appellants and to restore the saidland to the Gram Panchayat with police help – Aggrieved privaterespondents of writ petition filed these appeals – Held: Principle ofnatural justice demands that the party to the proceedings must beheard by the Court before passing any order in relation to the subjectmatter of such proceedings – In this case, the High Court issuedEsome mandatory directions to the State in relation to the subject-matter of the proceedings but it was done without hearing theappellants (respondents in the writ petition before the High Court)– For the said reason, the impugned order is set aside – Parties toraise all their pleas before the High Court to enable it to decide inFaccordance with law.
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to High Court,the Court HELD : The basic fundamental principle of law that no ordercan be passed by any Court in any judicial proceedings againstGany party to such proceedings without hearing and giving suchparty an opportunity of hearing. The fact that a person is made aparty to the judicial proceedings in relation to a certain disputehas a legitimate right to raise an objection that before passingany order in such proceedings, he should be at least heard andHhis views/stand in relation to the subject matter of the proceedings be taken into consideration. The Court is duty bound to hear allsuch person(s) by giving them an opportunity to place their stand.In this case, the High Court issued some mandatory directionsto the State in relation to the subject-matter of the proceedingsbut it was done without hearing the appellants(respondents inthe writ petition before the High Court). It is for this reason, theimpugned order is set aside. It is for the parties to raise all theirpleas before the High Court to enable it to decide in accordancewith 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 Case Law Reference [1955] SCR 1relied onPara 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11757-11758 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.05.2016 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 9512 of 2016 andorder dated 21.10.2016 in RA-CW-312 of 2016.
V. Giri, Sr. Adv., Devashish Bharuka, Vikram Punia,, Advs. forthe Appellants.
Rakesh K. Khanna, Sr. Adv., Kaushal Yadav, Nandlal KumarMishra, 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, UtkarshSingh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
47
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and orderdated 16.05.2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana atChandigarh in C.W.P. No.9512 of 2016 whereby the Division Bench ofthe High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by respondent No.8herein with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat to obtain areport from a fact finding inquiry regarding the unauthorized encroachment A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
Aof the appellants herein over the land of the Gram Panchayat and torestore the said land to the Gram Panchayat with police help. Againstthe said order, the appellants herein filed review petition which wasdismissed by the High Court by order dated 21.10.2016 in RA-CW-312of 2016 in CWP No.9512/2016.
3. Few facts need mention infra for the disposal of these appeals.
B
4. At the outset, it may be mentioned that it was not in dispute thatthe High Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by respondentNo.8 herein against the appellants and State issued certain mandatorydirections to the State Authorities in respect of the subject matter of theCwrit petition for their compliance. It is also not in dispute that theappellants were arrayed in the said writ petition (No.9512 of 2016) asrespondent Nos. 8 to 80.
5. Indeed, we also find that the High Court also observed (seepage 2 of the impugned order) that they do not deem it necessary toDissue any notice to any of the private respondents except to the Stateand its Authorities considering the nature of the order they intend to passfor the disposal of the writ petition.
6. Against this order, the private respondent Nos. 8 to 80 of thewrit petition have felt aggrieved and filed these appeals by way of specialleave in this Court.E
7. Though learned counsel for the parties made lengthy submissionson merits of the case in support of their respective stands but keeping inview the admitted fact emerging from the record of the proceedings thatthe impugned order was passed without hearing the present appellantsdespite they being party respondents in the writ petition, we are of theFconsidered view that the impugned order is not legally sustainable.
8. We may reiterate the basic fundamental principle of law thatno order can be passed by any Court in any judicial proceedings againstany party to such proceedings without hearing and giving such party anopportunity of hearing.
G
9. Principle of natural justice demands that the party to theproceedings must be heard by the Court before passing any order inrelation to the subject matter of such proceedings (see observations ofan eminent Judge - Vivian Bose in Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal(AIR 1955 SC 425).H
10. The fact that a person is made a party to the judicialproceedings in relation to a certain dispute has a legitimate right to raisean objection that before passing any order in such proceedings, he shouldbe at least heard and his views/stand in relation to the subject matter ofthe proceedings be taken into consideration. The Court is duty bound tohear 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 mandatorydirections to the State in relation to the subject-matter of the proceedingsbut it was done without hearing the appellants(respondents in the writpetition before the High Court). It is for this reason, we are unable touphold the impugned order.
12. We have not set out the entire factual dispute which led tofiling of the writ petition, nor set out the stand taken by the parties againsteach other before the High Court and nor dealt with any factual issuesarising in the case though argued vehemently by both the learned counselagainst each other.
13. In our view, it is for the parties to raise all their pleas beforethe 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 andare accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. The writ petition,out of which these appeals arise, is restored to its original number beforethe High Court.
15. Let the writ petition be decided by the High Court after hearingall the parties in accordance with law. Since the matter relates to a largepiece of the land, it must be disposed of within six months from the dateof this order without allowing any party to seek any adjournment.
Devika Gujral
Matter remitted to High Court.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H