Demolition of an encroachment was upheld where notice and an opportunity to participate were established.

The petitioners’ house and small shop, constructed on Abadi land recorded as Khasra No. 164 at Village Bendridih, were demolished on 3 June 2022. They challenged the demolition, alleging that it was carried out without notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to remove their belongings.

The petitioners accepted that they were encroachers but sought scrutiny of the demolition, disciplinary action against the concerned officials, and compensation.

The State relied on a show-cause notice dated 22 September 2021 and an order sheet dated 29 September 2021, which recorded the petitioners’ participation and acknowledgment of the encroachment.

The petitioners also sought to amend the petition to challenge the order dated 29 September 2021; that application was considered with the writ petition.

1. Whether the demolition was carried out without notice or an opportunity of hearing, in violation of the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the petitioners’ claim for compensation for demolition could be adjudicated in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226

3. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to amend the petition to challenge the order dated 29 September 2021

The Court considered the principles of natural justice in the context of action to remove an encroachment, and the scope of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It held that a claim requiring adjudication of disputed questions of fact—including the extent of loss and the circumstances and legality of demolition—is not appropriately determined in writ proceedings; the claimant may pursue an appropriate remedy before a competent forum.

The Court found that the petitioners did not dispute their status as encroachers and that the record showed a show-cause notice had been issued, the petitioners had participated in proceedings, and their acknowledgment of the encroachment was recorded under their signatures. The Patwari’s report also supported their unauthorized occupation.

On that material, the Court rejected the claim that the petitioners had been denied an opportunity of hearing and found no basis to interfere with the consequential removal action.

The compensation claim involved disputed factual questions unsuitable for determination under Article 226, while the proposed amendment would not enable effective relief in light of the Court’s findings on notice and encroachment.

It rejected the amendment application seeking to challenge the order dated 29 September 2021, but left the petitioners at liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy before a competent forum for compensation.