Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. We have perused the order passed by learned Single Judge, memo of petition, orders passed by authorities below and affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.1 as well as affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the appellant. It appears from the record that an application was submitted by respondent No.1 to the Collector, Vadodara that the appellant had constructed a residential premises on a common plot of a society. The Collector by his order dated 24.5.1993 passed an order to remove the construction on the disputed piece of land. It was further ordered that the construction shall not be permitted to continue on the said disputed piece of land.

6. It is clear from the order dated 24.5.1993 that the Collector, Vadodara did not issue any notice and called upon the appellant-petitioner to show-cause why the construction which he had put on the so-called common plot shall not be removed. In absence of such notice, the appellant-petitioner could not file any reply to the said notice or represent his case before the Collector. Thus it is clear that the appellant petitioner was not at all heard by the Collector before passing the impugned order. In our view, it is a clear breach of principle of natural justice in absence of hearing a party against whom the order is passed. It is a settled principle that if an authority desires to pass any adverse orders against a party, he is required to be heard by the said authority. In the present case, neither the authority has issued notice nor the appellant-petitioner was heard by the Collector who has passed the first order removing the construction on the said piece of land. It is also not clear from the said order dated 24.5.1993 that under which provisions of law, the Collector had exercise his power of removing a construction on an alleged common plot of a society.