The necessity of affording a fair hearing before administrative decisions is crucial to ensure due process.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. R.M. Bhatt for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the respondent No.1 State.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Chitrajeet Upadhyay with learned advocate Mr. Param Dave have requested permission to appear on behalf of the respondent No.5 and whereas an affidavit in reply is filed, the same is ordered to be taken on record. Learned advocate has been permitted to make submissions.

3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 12.02.2025, whereby the Mamlatdar, Tarapur, has reduced / corrected the extent of land held by the petitioner in 7/12 extract in so far as land of the petitioner is concerned.

4. Since it appears to this Court that the petitioner may not have been given a fair opportunity before the order impugned was passed and whereas upon a broad consensus being arrived at, more particularly the State being inclined to take an appropriate decision after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and to such person, who would be affected basis any order that would be passed by the Mamlatdar, to this Court, the following directions would meet with the ends of justice:

(a) The order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Mamlatdar, Tarapur, is hereby quashed and set aside.

(b) The Mamlatdar, Tarapur, is at liberty to take appropriate action in so far as the representation preferred by the respondent No.5 dated 07.02.2025 is concerned, albeit, after giving appropriate opportunity to all concerned, more particularly to such person, who may be prejudiced / adversely effected on account of any order that would be passed by the Mamlatdar.

(c) All contentions on behalf of all sides are kept open for the Mamlatdar to decide.

With this observations and directions, present petition stands disposed of as partly allowed. Consequently, Civil Application also stands disposed of.

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into merits of the matter and whereas the Mamlatdar is expected to take a decision strictly in accordance with law and in accordance with the observations of this Court hereinabove. It is further clarified that none of the observations hereinabove may be treated as observations made by this Court on the merits of the matter.

All consequential actions of the quashment of the order dated 12.02.2025 to follow.