JOHRA & ORS. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 970 · Decided: 03-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Leave granted
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
970                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
JOHRA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11757-11758 of 2018)
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
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
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
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
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
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
his views/stand in relation to the subject matter of the proceedings
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 970
970
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
971
be taken into consideration. The Court is duty bound to hear all
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
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
Case Law Reference
[1955] SCR 1
relied on
Para 9
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11757-
11758 of 2018.
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.
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.
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
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
OHRA & ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
972                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
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.
3. Few facts need mention infra for the disposal of these appeals.
4. At the outset, it may
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.