In a significant ruling on procedural fairness, the Bombay High Court has underscored the mandatory nature of a five-day advance notice in quasi-judicial proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Court set aside orders passed by the Tahsildar, Latur, for violating principles of natural justice and a government circular mandating adherence to procedural safeguards. This judgment reinforces the binding nature of judicial guidelines on administrative authorities.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, landowners in Latur district, challenged notices and orders issued by the Tahsildar under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The impugned orders were passed without affording the petitioners adequate opportunity to present their case, raising concerns of procedural irregularities.
Key Facts
- 18.05.2026: Show cause notices issued to the petitioners by the Tahsildar, Latur
- 19.05.2026: Petitioners served with the show cause notices
- 20.05.2026: Proceedings closed for orders without recording written submissions or granting personal hearing
- 01.06.2026: Impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar
- 14.07.2023: Government circular issued by the Law and Judiciary Department, Mumbai, directing all departments to adhere to the five-day notice requirement in quasi-judicial proceedings, as laid down in Devidas Anandrao Pingale v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Procedural History
- 29.03.2023: Judgment in Devidas Anandrao Pingale v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No. 3973 of 2023) delivered by the Bombay High Court, mandating a five-day advance notice in quasi-judicial proceedings
- 2026: Petitioners filed writ petitions (WP Nos. 6368, 6429, and 6435 of 2026) before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the impugned orders
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners:
- Argued that the impugned orders were passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice
- Contended that the Tahsildar failed to adhere to the five-day notice requirement as mandated by the government circular and the judgment in Devidas Anandrao Pingale
- Highlighted that written submissions were not recorded, and no personal hearing was granted despite the petitioners' presence
For the Respondents:
- The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), did not contest the procedural lapses but relied on the merits of the impugned orders
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the impugned orders dated 01.06.2026
- Remand of the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration in accordance with law
- Direction to the Tahsildar to grant a five-day advance notice and opportunity of hearing before passing any order
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar, without adhering to the five-day advance notice requirement and principles of natural justice, were sustainable in law.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar, learned advocate for the petitioners, submitted:
- The impugned orders were passed in violation of the government circular dated 14.07.2023, which mandated adherence to the five-day notice requirement as laid down in Devidas Anandrao Pingale
- The Tahsildar failed to record written submissions or grant a personal hearing, despite the petitioners' presence
- The Roznama of proceedings indicated that the matter was closed for orders on 20.05.2026, merely a day after the show cause notice was served
For the Respondent
The respondents, through the AGP, did not present substantive arguments contesting the procedural lapses but relied on the merits of the impugned orders.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the impugned orders depicted a gross violation of principles of natural justice and the guidelines embodied in the government circular dated 14.07.2023. The circular explicitly directed all departments to adhere to the five-day advance notice requirement in quasi-judicial proceedings, as established in Devidas Anandrao Pingale v. State of Maharashtra and Others.
The Court noted:
"Apparently, this Court finds that respondent/authority has contravened guidelines embodied in circular dated 14.7.2023 issued by Law and Judiciary Department, Mumbai, whereby all Departments are directed to adhere with directions given by this Court in writ Petition No.3973 of 2023 (in case of Devidas Anandrao Pingale Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) decided on 29.3.2023, wherein this Court insisted for service of five days advance notice before passing order in quasi-judicial proceedings."
While acknowledging that the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code provides for an appellate remedy against the impugned orders, the Court held that the violation of procedural safeguards warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that adherence to principles of natural justice is non-negotiable, particularly when mandated by judicial precedent and government circulars.
The Verdict
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders dated 01.06.2026. The Court relegated the matters back to the Tahsildar, Latur, for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Tahsildar on 06.07.2026 and file their written submissions by 13.07.2026. The Tahsildar was directed to:
- Grant the petitioners an opportunity of personal hearing
- Pass fresh orders in accordance with law after considering the material placed before him
- Adhere to the five-day advance notice requirement as mandated by the government circular and judicial precedent
The Court clarified that it had not delved into the merits of the parties' contentions, leaving the Tahsildar free to decide the matter afresh based on the material on record.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
This judgment reaffirms that administrative authorities must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards, particularly when mandated by judicial precedent or government circulars. Practitioners should:
- Ensure compliance with notice periods: The five-day advance notice requirement is now a binding obligation in quasi-judicial proceedings under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- Document procedural lapses: In cases where orders are passed without adequate notice or hearing, practitioners can challenge such orders on grounds of violation of natural justice
- Rely on judicial guidelines: Government circulars and judicial precedents, such as Devidas Anandrao Pingale, can be invoked to seek remedies for procedural irregularities
The Limits of Appellate Review
While the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code provides for an appellate remedy, this judgment highlights that:
- Gross violations of natural justice may warrant direct interference under Article 226, bypassing the appellate route
- Judicial precedents and circulars can serve as binding guidelines, and non-compliance may vitiate the impugned orders
- Remand is a viable remedy: Courts may set aside orders and remand matters for fresh consideration, particularly when procedural lapses are established
