Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1073
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
Manubai w/o Kondiram Jawale - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No.9273 of 2014
Decided on : 17-07-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr P. C. Mayure, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr S. K. Shirse, Mr C. K. Shinde, Advocate
An order made by a quasi-judicial authority must be reasoned and provide reasonable notice to affected parties, failure to comply vitiates the order.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Principles of natural justice - Order by Hon'ble Minister setting aside earlier orders is challenged - Petitioners allege violation of natural justice due to non-speaking order and lack of reasonable notice - Principles of natural justice compel adjudicative bodies to provide reasoned orders and sufficient notice before adverse decisions are made (Paras 6, 12, 19).
(B) Administrative Law - Quasi-judicial powers - Authorities must record reasons for decisions, and failure to do so raises concerns of judicial accountability and transparency (Paras 18).
Facts of the case:
Petition filed by landowners challenging a ministerial order canceling a long-standing mutation entry in their favor due to alleged procedural improprieties. Petitioners argued that the order lacked reasons and reasonable notice was not granted before the hearing (Paras 5, 13).
Findings of Court:
The impugned order is quashed and remanded for fresh decision; reasonable opportunity for hearing must be provided (Paras 20, 21).
Issues: Whether the order issued by the Hon'ble Minister violated natural justice principles by being non-speaking and lacking adequate notice?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that failure to provide clear reasoning and reasonable notice constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice and undermines the integrity of judicial processes (Paras 8, 20).
Result: Writ Petition is partly allowed; the matter is remanded for reconsideration, ensuring compliance with due process.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to mutation entry and appeal processes. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 2. violation of natural justice principles alleged by petitioners. (Para 4 , 6 , 10) |
| 3. importance of reasons in quasi-judicial orders. (Para 8 , 15 , 17) |
| 4. court's concern on non-speaking order and reasonable notice. (Para 12 , 19) |
| 5. quasi-judicial orders must be reasoned and transparent. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 6. order for remand and hearing compliance. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.
2. Heard Advocate Mr P. C. Mayure, learned counsel for the petitioners, Advocate Mr S. K. Shirse, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Advocate Mr C. K. Shinde, learned counsel for respondent No.7.
3. This petition takes exception to the order dated 27/08/2014, passed by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue), Maharashtra State, in Appeal No.2014/P.K.131/J-6, by which, the appeal filed by respondent Nos.5 to 7 is allowed by setting aside the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik and other subordinate authority.
4. The main thrust of the arguments of the petitioners is violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners primary contention is that the impugned order is a non-speaking order being unreasoned and having been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it is an instance where the principles of natural justice are given complete go bye. In the backdrop of the legal position about settled principles of natural justice, the legality of the impugned order is being tested in this petition, which is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. Factual matrix leading to the instant petition is succinctly put herein below :-
(i) As regards the land situated at village Chande-Kasare, Taluka Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar, a mutation entry No.4444 was sanctioned on 12/06/1963 by the Survey Mamaledar, Nashik, creating a new Survey No.115/296/3. This mutation entry was recorded by consent of the original owner Shri Bhaguji Chapaji Jaypatre and the land came to be mutated in the name of petitioner No.1/ Manubai Kondiram Jawale.
(ii) After about 40 years, in the year 2012, the respondent No.5 to 7 challenged the entry No.4444 before the District Superintendent of Land Records, Ahmednagar, vide Appeal No.30/2011.
(iii) On 30/04/2012, this appeal came to be dismissed by giving due consideration to the consent given by the original owner Bhaguji Chapaji Jayapatre in Form no. 4 and also by considering inordinate delay of 40 years about which no explanation was offered .
(iv) Feeling aggrieved by this order, respondent Nos.5 to 7 filed further appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik, which came to be dismissed by order dated 28/02/2014, thereby confirming the order passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records, and consequently, confirming entry No.4444 which was sanctioned in the year 1963. Pertinent to note that the Deputy Director had categorically observed that Bhaguji Chapaji Jayapatre had given consent on Hissa Form No.4 and accordingly, Survey No.115/296/3 was recorded as 8 Acre 32 Are in the name of the petitioners.
(v) Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, respondent Nos.5 to 7 filed appeal before the Hon’ble Minister of Revenue, Maharashtra State, which came to be allowed by order dated 27/08/2014, consequently, canceling the mutation entry No.4444, which was sanctioned in the name of the petitioners in the year 1963.
(vi) The petitioners have raised challenge to this order by way of the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. Advocate P. C. Mayure, learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously submitted that the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Minister is illegal and unconstitutional being violative of principles of natural justice. He submitted that the impugned order only r
