Mohammad Attaulla vs Sarju Ram Gupta

Heard Mr. Anil Tawadkar, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Ajay Barik, learned counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 as well as Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 8.

There are two private respondents, being respondent Nos. 9 and 10, who were respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the writ petition.

In view of the order that is proposed to be passed, we are of the considered opinion that notice to the aforesaid respondent Nos. 9 and 10 is not required to be sent.

The appeal is directed against an order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 5481 of 2021, whereby the writ petition was disposed of in the following terms :

“8. The writ petition therefore at this juncture stands disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to ensure that the appeal is decided at the earliest. Meanwhile, let status quo in respect of the possession of the land as it exists today be maintained by the parties to the dispute till the appeal is finally decided. Meanwhile, if at all the demarcation proceeding in terms of the application moved by the respondents 7 & 8 is processed, the same can be carried out without creating any further right in favour of any person pending the appeal before the Commissioner.”

A perusal of the order, more particularly paragraph 5, would go to show that a prayer was made to the Commissioner, Surguja Division, Ambikapur for directing the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the appeal, but the Commissioner did not pass such order by failing to appreciate that the writ petitioners were in a possession of the land in question.

Mr. Tawadkar submits that no notice was issued to the appellants herein before the order of status quo was passed and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.

Mr. Barik very fairly submits that the order of learned Single Judge was passed without notice to the appellants herein.

In Johra and Others vs. State of Haryana & Others, reported in (2019) 2 SCC 324, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that no order prejudicial to the interest of the party can be passed without hearing such a party.

In that view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is allowed. The writ petition shall be listed before the learned Single Judge on 24.03.2022.