The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that even in the context of state-led land acquisition for public projects, the fundamental right to due process cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience. In a decisive ruling, the Court set aside an order mutating land records without notice or hearing to the affected landowner, emphasizing that procedural fairness is non-negotiable under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Kailash Kamlakar Shivale, is a landowner whose property is located within the ambit of the Chasakman Project in Khed, Maharashtra. The District Resettlement Officer (DRO), acting under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, unilaterally mutated the revenue records to transfer ownership from the petitioner to the State, effectively extinguishing his proprietary rights without any prior notice, opportunity to be heard, or reasoned order.
Procedural History
- August 20, 2024: Impugned order passed by the District Resettlement Officer mutating land records in favor of the State
- No notice issued: Petitioner was not served with any notice or statement of grounds
- No hearing granted: Petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to submit documents, evidence, or oral submissions
- December 2025: Writ Petition filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the order as violative of natural justice
- January 29, 2026: Court heard arguments and disposed of the petition
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order and a direction to the District Resettlement Officer to follow due process before taking any further action against his property rights under the Rehabilitation Act.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State, while exercising powers under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, can lawfully mutate land records and extinguish a landowner’s rights without providing notice, an opportunity to be heard, or a reasoned order.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. Sumit V. Khaire, Advocate for the petitioner, relied on the principles of natural justice enshrined in Article 21 and the doctrine of audi alteram partem. He cited the order passed in an identical writ petition (WP No. 1994 of 2025), where the Court had directed the DRO to grant a hearing. He argued that the Rehabilitation Act, though not explicitly mandating a hearing, operates within the constitutional framework that requires procedural fairness in deprivation of property. He emphasized that the State’s reliance on non-receipt of documents ("ilarh vgoky") cannot justify unilateral action against a citizen’s fundamental rights.
For the Respondent
Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, Additional Government Pleader, conceded that no notice or hearing was accorded to the petitioner. She disclosed that the DRO had not passed any final award due to incomplete documentation, yet the State had proceeded to mutate records. She acknowledged the lapse and submitted a communication from the Collector’s office admitting the procedural irregularity. Her submission, while legally defensive, was marked by fairness and transparency before the Court.
The Court's Analysis
The Court held that the rule of law cannot yield to administrative expediency, even in the context of public infrastructure projects. It observed that the power of eminent domain, though inherent in the State, is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with due process. The Court rejected the notion that non-receipt of documents by the DRO could justify extinguishing a citizen’s property rights without notice.
"Whenever land belonging to the owner is required to be taken under the power of eminent domain by the State, State is required to follow the due process of law which has not been done in the present case."
The Court emphasized that the absence of a final award did not absolve the DRO from adhering to basic procedural safeguards. It distinguished between administrative delays and substantive violations of rights, holding that mutation of records constitutes a final and irreversible deprivation of property rights. The Court further clarified that any future order by the DRO must be preceded by: (i) a specific notice delineating the cause of action, (ii) furnishing copies of all material relied upon, (iii) an opportunity to file an affidavit-in-reply, (iv) a personal hearing, and (v) a reasoned, speaking order.
The Court explicitly declined to pass any final determination on the merits of the State’s claim, keeping all substantive questions open, but insisted that the process must be fair before any adverse decision is rendered.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court set aside the impugned order dated August 20, 2024, and directed the District Resettlement Officer to follow full procedural due process before taking any further action. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of with directions to provide notice, hearing, and a reasoned order.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Notice Is Mandatory Before Property Deprivation
- Practitioners must now challenge any administrative order affecting land rights where notice was not issued, regardless of statutory silence
- The absence of a hearing provision in a statute does not negate the constitutional obligation under Article 21
- Even in rehabilitation schemes, procedural fairness is a non-derogable right
Reasoned Orders Are Non-Negotiable
- Any adverse order must be "speaking" - stating reasons, referencing evidence, and addressing submissions
- Failure to furnish copies of documents relied upon renders the proceeding voidable
- Affidavits-in-reply must be formally recorded and considered
Appellate Rights Must Be Explicitly Preserved
- Petitioners must be clearly informed of their right to appeal within 15 days
- The Court’s direction to preserve appellate remedies reinforces that procedural compliance is a precondition for substantive adjudication
- Practitioners should now routinely include a prayer for appellate rights in writ petitions challenging administrative action
