Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Ashok Kumar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Commissioner, Edmc & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1075 of 2021
Decided On : 29-01-2021
Exemption - Land Dispute - The court set aside the impugned order directing the removal of an alleged illegal structure from the land, as the petitioners were not granted a personal hearing as mandated by a previous court order. The matter was remitted to the respondents for granting a hearing to the petitioners and to pass a fresh order expeditiously.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order directing the removal of an alleged illegal structure from the land, stating that they were not granted a personal hearing as mandated by a previous court order.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the respondents for granting a hearing to the petitioners and to pass a fresh order expeditiously.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of a personal hearing for the petitioners as mandated by a previous court order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the failure to grant a personal hearing to the petitioners as mandated by a previous court order, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Final Decision: The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the respondents for granting a hearing to the petitioners and to pass a fresh order expeditiously.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. - CM APPL.2997/2021(Exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 1075/2021 & CM APPL.2998/2021
1. Petitioners impugn the order/letter dated 06.01.2021, whereby petitioners have been directed to remove the alleged illegal structure from the land in question within one month from the receipt of the notice.
2. Order dated 06.01.2021 states that the same is in compliance of directions contained in order dated 26.08.2019 in WP(C) 2365/2016 of the High Court.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that each of the petitioners has been in occupation of the respective subject land for several decades. He further submits that by order dated 26.08.2019 in WP(C) 2365/2016, the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to remove the encroachment in accordance with Law, Rules, Regulations and Government Policy, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the owners/occupiers of the super-structure.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits though a show-cause notice was issued which was duly replied to, no hearing was afforded to any of the petitioners.
5. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, under instructions, submits that the subject orders deal with the contentions of the petitioners as stated in their replies, however he concedes that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioners.
7. In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the order, since no personal hearing has been granted to the petitioners which was mandated by order dated 26.08.2019 in WP(C) 2365/2016, the impugned order is set aside.
8. The matter is remitted to the respondents for granting a hearing to the Petitioners consequent to the show-cause notice issued to them and thereafter to pass a fresh order.
9. It is expected that the proceedings shall be finalized by the respondents expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from today.
10. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
11. Petition along with pending applications are disposed of in the above terms.
12. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email by the Court Master.
Failure to grant a personal hearing as mandated by a previous court order can lead to the setting aside of an impugned order.
Procedural fairness requires that parties must be given a personal hearing before administrative actions, failing which the orders may be set aside.
The necessity of affording a personal hearing in administrative proceedings is critical to upholding procedural fairness and natural justice.
The court emphasized the necessity for a timely and reasoned decision on representations affecting property rights, ensuring the petitioners receive a personal hearing.
Unauthorized structures on government land without permission unprotected; writ jurisdiction bars disputed pre-datum facts; strict judicial stance against illegal constructions, no sympathy for viola....
The authority must consider representations before issuing final orders, and such consideration must be reflected in the order to ensure procedural fairness.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
