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 RA­

CW­312 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