1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Gulshan Singh against judgment and order dated 23.11.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition bearing OWP No.1755/2015 titled ‘Smt. Sudershana Kumari vs State and ors.’ for setting aside the same.

2. Respondent No.6 filed a writ petition seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 01 to 05 to implement the order dated 25.09.2009 passed by the Tehsildar, Kathua under the provisions of J&K Common Land (Regulations) Act, 1956 for removing the encroachment made by private respondents Nos. 6 to 8 in respect of the bandobasti passage measuring 1 kanal 6 marlas comprised of Khasra No.99 situated at Village Janlote, Tehsil and District Kathua.

3. The appellant-Gulshan Singh, son of late Sh. Kuldip Singh filed his objections to the petition. The appellant sought dismissal of the petition on merit as well as on the ground of maintainability. In the objections, it was submitted that order dated 25.09.2009 has been obtained by quoting wrong facts and on a wrong report obtained from the revenue officials that there was a ‘Bandobasti Rasta’ in khasra No.99. The land in question is a private land which has been acquired under the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy Act and, in fact, as per the revenue record there is no common pathway on the land. Therefore, the Tehsildar, Kathua could not have exercised his jurisdiction and passed the order dated 25.09.2009 under Jammu & Kashmir Common Land (Regulations) Act.

4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, application was filed by Madan Singh, Yuvraj Singh and Vijay Singh, seeking their impleadment in the writ petition as party respondents.

5. The writ petition has been decided without considering this application or the objections filed by the appellant and the petition was decided on 23.11.2023.

6. The appellant submits that the writ petition was heard and decided on merits without hearing the appellant or considering the objections filed by him. There is no observation or finding on the objections raised by the appellant that report of the patwari is allegedly fabricated. It is, thus, urged that order dated 23.11.2023 needs to be set aside in the interest of justice.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant herein did not choose to appear before the learned Single Judge to contest the writ petition, therefore, he cannot raise any grievance as regards the disposal of the writ petition without hearing him by the learned Single Judge. 

8. A perusal of the file reveals that appellant had been represented before the writ court on all the dates till 30.08.2018 except one date, but the petition was heard and considered finally without hearing the appellant.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised a serious objection by disputing the claim of respondent No.6 and has also raised the plea regarding non-maintainability of the aforesaid writ petition. In our considered view, the appellant, thus, was entitled to be heard by the learned Single Judge before the writ petition was decided finally.

10. The contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant appear to be justified as the principles of natural justice have not been followed in this case and writ petition was decided without giving any opportunity of hearing to the private respondent (appellant herein), who was contesting the writ petition since its very inception.

11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, we are of the considered view that the matter is required to be heard afresh by the learned writ court. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 23.11.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Single Judge for hearing it afresh after giving an adequate opportunity to the other side.

12. Disposed of.