The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that even in matters involving state property, the principle of natural justice cannot be bypassed. A writ petition challenging coercive eviction notices issued to long-term leaseholders was allowed not on the merits of title, but on the foundational violation of fair procedure.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, descendants of original lessees, have occupied and operated small businesses (Galas/Shops 1 to 14) on CTS No. 931, Shukrawar Peth, Pune, for over six decades under a lease granted by the State Government. The dispute arose when the Tahsildar of Pune issued two coercive notices - dated 31.10.2025 and 03.11.2025 - directing the petitioners to vacate the premises by 07.11.2025, threatening forcible removal. The notices were issued without any prior hearing, despite the petitioners’ longstanding possession and continuous payment of rent. Notably, the notices were addressed to deceased persons, and no legal heirs were formally notified.
Key Facts
- The petitioners hold a lease deed dated 10.12.1964, which permits termination on one month’s notice if the land is required by the Poona Municipal Corporation
- The petitioners have paid rent regularly to the Tahsildar, Pune, for over 60 years, establishing de facto recognition of their possession
- On 05.10.2011, the Bombay High Court, in Writ Petition No. 5680 of 2010, directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation before the Collector, Pune, for redressal of their grievance
- The representation was submitted on 18.09.2011 (page 189 of the paper-book) and remained undecided for over 14 years
- The impugned notices dated 31.10.2025 and 03.11.2025 were issued without reference to the pending representation or any opportunity of hearing
- The notices named deceased individuals as lessees, ignoring the legal heirs in actual occupation
Procedural History
- 10.12.1964: Lease deed executed between State Government and original lessees
- 05.10.2011: Bombay High Court, in WP No. 5680 of 2010, directed petitioners to file representation before Collector
- 18.09.2011: Representation filed by petitioners before Collector, Pune
- 31.10.2025: First coercive notice issued by Tahsildar, Pune, directing eviction by 07.11.2025
- 03.11.2025: Second notice issued, reiterating eviction demand without addressing representation or heirs
- 15.11.2025: Writ Petition No. 15077 of 2025 filed before Bombay High Court
- 26.03.2026: Hearing before Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and S.M. Modak
The Parties' Positions
Petitioners: Argued that their possession is lawful under the 1964 lease, supported by 60 years of uninterrupted occupation and rent payment. They contended that the notices violated audi alteram partem by denying hearing, ignored the pending representation, and were issued to deceased persons. Relied on the 2011 Court direction to treat the representation as pending.
Respondent-State: Initially opposed the petition on merits, asserting state’s right to reclaim property. However, on instructions, the Additional Government Pleader conceded that a 30-day notice should be given before any coercive action.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of notices dated 31.10.2025 and 03.11.2025
- A writ of mandamus restraining any coercive action
- A direction to the Collector to decide the pending representation of 18.09.2011
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the issuance of coercive eviction notices without affording an opportunity of hearing to long-term leaseholders, particularly when a prior representation remains undecided, violates the principles of natural justice under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Advocate Prafulla Shah argued that the petitioners’ 60-year possession, coupled with continuous rent payment and judicial recognition in 2011, created a legitimate expectation of fair procedure. He cited Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to establish that any state action affecting personal rights must follow fair procedure. The failure to hear the petitioners before issuing eviction notices, especially when the representation was pending, amounted to arbitrariness under Article 14. The notices addressed to deceased persons were legally void.
For the Respondent
The Additional Government Pleader initially defended the notices as lawful exercise of state power. However, under instructions, he conceded that the petitioners must be heard before any eviction and proposed a 30-day notice period. He did not contest the pendency of the 2011 representation or the procedural irregularity in naming deceased persons.
The Court's Analysis
The Court did not adjudicate the title or validity of the lease. Instead, it focused squarely on procedural fairness. The Bench observed that the petitioners had been in possession for over six decades, paying rent regularly, and had been directed by this Court in 2011 to file a representation - a representation that remained unaddressed for 14 years.
"Before the eviction notice is issued, no opportunity of hearing is given to the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of this case when the petitioners claim on the basis of the lease and when it is their contention to be in occupation for 60 years, they should have been heard."
The Court emphasized that the right to livelihood, especially for small business owners with generational ties to property, falls within the ambit of Article 21. The issuance of notices to deceased persons and the disregard of a pending representation rendered the action procedurally flawed. The State’s concession that a 30-day notice should be given further confirmed the illegality of the prior notices.
The Court declined to make any observation on the merits of the claim, stating that the Collector must now decide the representation afresh, with due opportunity to the petitioners.
The Verdict
The writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:
- The petitioners shall appear before the Collector, Pune, on 30.03.2026 at 11:00 a.m.
- The writ petition itself shall be treated as the representation, and the Collector shall decide it within 30 days
- If the decision is adverse, no eviction shall occur for one week from the date of communication of the order
- The interim application stands disposed of
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Fairness Trumps Administrative Convenience
- Practitioners must now argue that even in state land disputes, a 60-year possession coupled with rent payment creates a legitimate expectation of hearing
- Any notice of eviction must be preceded by a meaningful opportunity to be heard, regardless of the nature of the tenancy
- Failure to decide pending representations for over a decade constitutes administrative arbitrariness
Notices to Deceased Persons Are Legally Void
- Eviction notices must be issued to the current legal occupants or heirs, not to deceased persons
- Notices addressed to deceased individuals are null and void ab initio and cannot be cured by subsequent action
- Courts will treat such notices as evidence of bad faith or procedural negligence
Representation Pending for Over a Decade Must Be Decided Promptly
- Administrative delay in deciding representations filed pursuant to court directions is actionable
- Courts may treat pending petitions as representations to prevent further delay
- The 30-day timeline imposed here sets a new benchmark for administrative compliance in similar cases
