Authorities must follow statutory procedures and afford encroachers an opportunity before removal.

The 105 petitioners sought a mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the District Forest Officer and Forest Range Officer, to pass orders on their representations in accordance with directions in earlier writ petitions.

The petition also raised the question of eviction without due process.

The State submitted that the District Collector had constituted a committee to ascertain the facts and address the alleged encroachment; further action would follow receipt of the committee’s report.

Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the petitioners’ representations concerning the alleged encroachment.

Whether any decision to remove encroachment must comply with the applicable statutory procedure and afford the affected persons an opportunity to be heard.

The Court referred to Article 226, under which the High Court may issue a writ of mandamus, and directed that any decision to remove an encroachment must follow the procedures prescribed by the relevant statutes and rules in force and afford the affected persons an opportunity in accordance with law.

The judgment does not identify any particular statute, rule, or precedent.

The State’s submission that a committee had been constituted and that further action would follow its report addressed the status of the encroachment inquiry.

Since the reliefs were general in nature, the Court did not order a particular outcome on the representations or the alleged encroachment.

Instead, it ensured that any decision to remove encroachment would be made through the applicable legal procedure and after giving the affected persons an opportunity.

No costs were awarded.