JUDGMENT The petitioner claims to be the owner of the piece of land No. 119 situated in Ward No.9 at Maheshwar Road Dhamnod. She deposited the requisite tax (Annexures 'v' & 'c'). The petitioner applied for sanction of construction (Annexure - ''l'') and deposited the requisite fee (Annexure -'n'), The map (Annexure-'b') was also submitted. The respondent No. 3 (Municipality Diamond) granted the requisite permission on deposit of fee of Rs. 200=00 on 21.5.1991 (Annexure- 'i' & 'Q'). The petitioner. commenced the construction in conformity with the sanction. On 30.6.1991, the Patwari issued notice complaining encroachment(Annexure-';'). This was followed by the notice of respondent No.2 Tahsildar (Annexure-'j'). The petitioner filed the reply on 12.7.1991 (Annexure-'y'). The respondent No.3, however, demanded removal of the encroachment on 9.7.1991 (Annexure- 'o') and also issued another letter dated 30.8.1991 (Annexure -'l') saying that the title of the land was disputed and as such the sanction granted earlier was liable to be cancelled. The petitioner protested through notice via his counsel on 7.9.91 (Annexure -'l'). As the authority did not relent, the petitioner submitted this writ petition. The respondent No.1 and 2 filed the reply in oppugnation. On 18.9.1991 this Court directed that the petitioner's encroachment, if any, shall not be removed except in accordance with law. On consent of the parties the petition is finally heard. The counsel for the petitioner submitted following two points before me : - (a) The sanction once granted for construction is not liable to be withdrawn' or cancelled without hearing the petitioner in that behalf. (b) The construction made in pursuance of the sanction is not liable to be branded and removed as encroachment without following due process of law. The counsel for the respondent') have no objection for disposal of this petition with appropriate directions. In AIR 1973 SC 834 (State of Punjab v. KR.Erry) it is held as under: - "With the proliferation of administrative decision in the welfare State it is now further recognised by Courts both in England and in this country, that where a body or authority is characteristically administrative the principle of natural justice is also liable to be invoked if the decision of that body or authority affect individual rights or interests, and having regard to the particular situation it would be unfair for the body or authority not to have allowed a reasonable opportunity to be heard, case law Discussed. AIR 1960 SC 247 , Distinguished." In the circumstances, I dispose of this petition with directions as under:- (a) The orders dated 9.7.1991 (Annexure 'o') and dated 30.8.1991 (Annexure 'l') issued by respondent No.3 are hereby quashed. (b) The respondent No. 3 shall issue proper show-cause notice to the petitioner on the question of encroachment and title and shall pass appropriate orders in conformity with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in that behalf within a period of four months. (c) The sanction granted on 21.5. J 991 (Annexure -'Q') shall not be cancelled without hearing the petitioner and the question of renewal, if necessary, shall be considered in conformity with rules. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands finally disposed of but without any order as to costs.