Authorities must hear occupants and assess entitlement documents before deciding eviction.

The petitioners claimed that they had been allotted five acres of Government land in 1980–81 and had constructed a house and boundary wall there.

The authorities treated them as encroachers in connection with a proposed Gothan, issued an eviction order, and demolished the boundary wall.

The petitioners challenged the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order dated 10 June 2021, asserting that they held a patta and had not been heard.

The State disputed their entitlement, submitting that the land had been allotted only for plantation and that the petitioners’ documents referred to inconsistent land particulars.

An interim order dated 7 September 2021 restrained forcible dispossession.

Whether the petitioners should be given an opportunity to produce documents supporting their claimed entitlement to the land before the authorities decide whether they may be evicted

Whether the authorities should reconsider the petitioners’ claim after hearing them and examining the relevant documents, without the Court determining the merits of that claim

The Court cited no specific statute or precedent.

It applied the procedural principle that, where entitlement to land is disputed and relevant documents require consideration, the affected persons should have an opportunity to submit their documents and be heard before the authorities pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

The parties disputed the nature and extent of the petitioners’ rights: the petitioners asserted patta rights, while the State contended that the land was granted only for plantation and identified inconsistencies in the documents and khasra particulars.

Because those matters required factual examination, the Court directed the authorities to receive the petitioners’ documents, hear them, and decide the claim in accordance with law.

It expressly left the merits undecided.

The interim protection against eviction under the order dated 7 September 2021 was to continue until expiry of that 60-day period.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits.