Authorities must provide notice and hearing to affected persons before removing alleged encroachments.

The petitioner claimed ownership and possession of a 5,000 sq. ft. commercial plot situated at Nazul Sheet No. 69, Plot No. 1, near Chandmari Filter Plant, Raigarh, which he had acquired through an open auction conducted by the Collector (Nazul Department) and subsequently registered after payment of the requisite fees.

He alleged that persons had encroached upon the approach road connecting the main road to his plot, thereby obstructing access, and that the road did not conform to the applicable city master plan.

He filed the writ petition seeking directions for proper demarcation, removal of encroachments, and restoration of access to the plot.

The respondents submitted that the petitioner could approach the competent authorities, which would adjudicate his claim in accordance with law.

1. Whether the High Court should directly order the respondents to provide an approach road, conduct demarcation, and remove alleged encroachments, or require the petitioner to first approach the competent revenue or municipal authorities?

2. Whether any action for removal of encroachments or demolition could be taken without notice and an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons?

The Court applied the principle that disputes concerning demarcation, encroachment removal, Nazul land, and municipal access should ordinarily be examined in the first instance by the competent revenue or municipal authorities in accordance with law.

It further relied on the Supreme Court’s directions in Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, In re, (2025) 5 SCC 1, particularly paragraphs 94.1–94.10, which require prior show-cause notice, proper service, disclosure of the alleged violations, an opportunity of personal hearing, recording of hearing minutes, and a reasoned final order before demolition or comparable coercive action.

The governing principle was compliance with natural justice and statutory procedure before adverse action is taken against alleged encroachers.

The Court held that the petitioner’s grievance involved factual matters—such as the location and status of the approach road, the nature of the alleged encroachment, and whether the land fell within municipal limits or constituted Nazul land—which required examination by the competent authorities rather than adjudication directly in the writ proceedings.

Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to submit an appropriate application before the concerned Tehsildar and the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh.

The authority having jurisdiction was required to examine the application and take appropriate action: the Municipal Corporation if the land fell within municipal limits, and the Nazul Officer and Tehsildar if it was Nazul land.

Since removal could affect alleged encroachers, the Court required notice and hearing in conformity with the Supreme Court’s procedural safeguards before any order for removal or demolition was passed.

The petitioner was directed to file an application before the concerned Tehsildar and the Municipal Corporation, Raigarh, within 15 days.

The competent authority was directed to determine the jurisdictional status of the land and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

Before taking coercive action, the authorities were required to issue notice to all affected persons, provide them an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order consistent with In re, (2025) 5 SCC 1.

The Court clarified that its order did not decide the dispute in favour of the petitioner or against the alleged encroachers.