#due process

Revenue Standing Order 26(15) cannot convert patta land to government property without due process, the Madras HC held, quashing the Section 6 notice under the TN Land Encroachments Act. The court awarded ₹10,000 costs and ordered compensation for 100 felled trees.

Municipal authorities must give a hearing before sealing a banquet hall, the Jharkhand HC held, emphasizing due process under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 and Bye-Laws, 2016; the ruling affects owners and users, who must receive notice and a hearing.

Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that a gram panchayat cannot remove encroachments without following Section 56 procedure, restoring trial court’s injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

Calcutta HC ruled banks cannot partially freeze accounts on mere mule suspicion without evidence, notice, and hearing - violating natural justice and RBI Master Directions. Ordered defreeze with lien only on disputed ₹10 lakh and a six-week decision deadline, affirming proportionality and due process for account holders.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that demolishing residential premises for road widening without prior notice, a hearing, or compensation violates constitutional due process, and ordered a committee to ensure procedural compliance and award appropriate compensation to affected owners. This decision reinforces procedural safeguards for property owners under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement framework.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that Fair Price Shop dealers cannot be deprived of essential commodity supplies without adhering to due process under the A.P. State Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2018. The Court emphasized that attachment of supplies without a suspension or cancellation order from the competent authority violates principles of natural justice, directing immediate restoration of the petitioner’s shop supplies.

Allahabad High Court quashes a penalty order under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 for violating natural justice principles by failing to serve prior notice. The ruling reinforces that administrative authorities must afford due process before imposing penalties, impacting all regulatory proceedings under the Act.

Bombay High Court ruled that a land acquisition award amended via corrigendum after 31 years is void if due process under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was bypassed. The Court directed fresh compensation proceedings, reinforcing that procedural compliance is non-negotiable even for decades-old acquisitions, impacting landowners and government agencies alike.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that freezing bank accounts or credit cards based solely on police intimation violates due process, directing banks to hold disputed amounts in fixed deposits pending judicial orders.

Rajasthan High Court holds that issuing arrest warrants solely because a defendant's counsel obtained certified copies violates due process. The court converted the arrest warrant to a bailable warrant, reinforcing judicial safeguards against procedural arbitrariness in criminal trials.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that no demolition of property by a municipal corporation can proceed without issuing a statutory notice, providing a meaningful hearing, and passing a reasoned order. This reinforces the constitutional guarantee of procedural fairness under Article 21 and binds all municipal authorities to comply with the Municipal Corporation Act before depriving citizens of property.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that demolition of homes cannot proceed until authorities conclusively decide pending applications under Section 67-A of the U.P. Revenue Code, ensuring the right to shelter is protected by enforceable timelines. This binds revenue officials to act with urgency, preventing arbitrary evictions and giving legal teeth to procedural fairness in land disputes.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that municipal corporations must adhere to principles of natural justice, including issuing show-cause notices and conducting hearings, before evicting alleged encroachers. The Court directed the Kakinada Municipal Corporation to consider evidence of title and possession, reinforcing that procedural fairness is mandatory under the Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that municipal authorities cannot evict street vendors without following due process, reinforcing the constitutional right to livelihood under Article 19(1)(g). The judgment mandates compliance with the National Urban Street Vendors Policy, ensuring vendors are not arbitrarily displaced without notice or hearing, impacting thousands of informal workers across India.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that beneficiaries under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) cannot be evicted or dispossessed without prior notice and inquiry, as it violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A. The judgment reinforces that administrative actions under welfare schemes must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring procedural fairness for property holders.