Authorities must decide encroachment representations after hearing all affected parties, including the deceased petitioner’s legal heirs.

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to prevent the fifth respondent, the Executive Officer of Alwarthirunagari Town Panchayat, from evicting him from land in Survey No. 981/2, alleging that eviction was being pursued without due process

The State submitted that the land was classified as “Sarkar Poramboke” and that the petitioner had died during the pendency of the petition

The Court considered the petitioner’s representation dated 23 September 2024

Whether the authority could take action concerning the alleged encroachment without first considering the petitioner’s representation and affording affected parties an opportunity of hearing

Whether relief could be granted by directing the authority to consider the representation and decide the matter in accordance with law, including after the petitioner’s death

The Court invoked no specific statute or precedent.

It applied the principles of lawful administrative action and procedural fairness: an authority addressing an alleged encroachment must act in accordance with law, afford a hearing to necessary and interested parties, and decide the matter on its merits.

The Court directed that the deceased petitioner’s legal heirs be included in that process

The petitioner’s claim of possession and allegation of threatened eviction were disputed by the State’s assertion that the land was “Sarkar Poramboke”

Rather than determine the land’s status or the merits of the competing claims, the Court directed the authority to consider the pending representation and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Because the petitioner had died, the required hearing was to include his legal heirs as well as other necessary and interested parties

It directed the authority concerned to consider the representation dated 23 September 2024, hear all necessary and interested parties—including the petitioner’s legal heirs—and pass appropriate orders on the merits within six weeks of receiving a copy of the order

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed