Administrative authorities must provide an opportunity of hearing to affected parties before taking action over alleged road encroachments.

The original petitioner (Respondent No. 6, deceased and substituted by legal representatives) filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to open an allegedly blocked pathway/public road leading to his house, which he claimed to have used for 40 years.

The writ petition named the appellants herein as Respondents No. 6 and 7, accusing them of illegal encroachment.

On 03.11.2018, the Writ Court disposed of the petition directing the Deputy Commissioner and Tehsildar to remove any found encroachments within one week.

The appellants challenged this order on the grounds that it was passed without affording them an opportunity to be heard.

Procedurally, the appeal was restored after being dismissed for non-prosecution, and legal representatives for deceased Appellant No. 1 were brought on record.

1. Whether the Writ Court erred in disposing of the writ petition without affording the affected private parties (the appellants) an opportunity of being heard.

2. Whether the directions issued by the Writ Court prejudiced the rights of the appellants regarding the status of the disputed land.

The court applied the fundamental principle of Natural Justice, specifically *Audi Alteram Partem* (the right to be heard), which mandates that no person shall be condemned unheard.

It further applied the principle that administrative or quasi-judicial authorities must conduct a factual determination (e.g., whether a road is "public") before taking enforcement action, ensuring that such determination includes participation from affected parties.

The High Court observed that the Writ Court indeed passed the impugned order without hearing the appellants, who were the primary contesting respondents.

However, the Bench noted that the Writ Court had not finally adjudicated the private rights of the parties or definitively declared the path as a public road; instead, it had delegated the investigation to the Deputy Commissioner and Tehsildar.

The Court reasoned that since the status of the road (public vs. private) remained a factual issue to be decided by the authorities, the requirements of justice would be met by ensuring the appellants are included in that decision-making process.

Consequently, rather than setting aside the order entirely, the Court deemed it necessary to modify the order to mandate a fair hearing.

It held that while the authorities (Respondent Nos. 3 to 5) are free to consider the issue of encroachment, they must afford a due opportunity of hearing to all affected parties, including the appellants, before passing any final order.

The appeal was disposed of with these directions.