#Opportunity of Hearing

The Supreme Court ruled that compliance with Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 requires more than a ritualistic hearing-landowners must be afforded a genuine and effective opportunity to present objections. The judgment quashes acquisition proceedings where objections were mechanically processed, reinforcing the principles of natural justice in administrative actions affecting property rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that landowners cannot bypass Section 5A proceedings and later challenge acquisition on grounds of denied hearing. The opportunity of hearing must be substantive, not just ritualistic, and procedural compliance suffices only if objections lack merit. This reinforces natural justice principles in eminent domain cases, impacting landowners, government agencies, and administrative law practitioners.

Madhya Pradesh High Court reinforces that recovery of government dues older than five years is barred under the Rafiq Masih judgment, mandating a prior hearing. The ruling protects employees from retrospective financial liabilities without due process, setting a critical precedent for service law and public body interactions.

The Kerala High Court ruled that a municipality cannot evict a fish merchant who has operated on the same site for over 50 years and paid regular rent, even under Section 411 for structural danger, without providing a meaningful opportunity to be heard. This reinforces that natural justice applies to all state actions affecting livelihoods, regardless of emergency claims.

MP High Court quashes termination order of a Gram Rojgar Sahayak, ruling that failure to provide a hearing before non-renewal of contract violates principles of natural justice. The court directs fresh adjudication within 30 days, reinforcing procedural fairness for all contract employees in public employment.

ITAT Delhi sets aside an ex-parte assessment order for failing to provide the assessee a genuine chance to respond to notices, emphasizing that procedural fairness under natural justice is non-negotiable even in tax proceedings. The ruling mandates de-novo proceedings, reinforcing that mechanical compliance with notice issuance does not suffice to uphold an ex-parte order.

Allahabad High Court reinforces that failure to provide the accused an opportunity of hearing before taking cognizance under Section 223 BNSS vitiates the summoning order. The ruling underscores that natural justice principles are sacrosanct, even in criminal proceedings, and non-compliance renders the order legally unsustainable.

Allahabad High Court rules that no salary reduction or refixation can be imposed without affording the employee an opportunity of hearing, even in cases of alleged overpayment, unless fraud is proven. The judgment reinforces the principles of natural justice in administrative actions affecting service matters.

The ITAT Ranchi restored assessment proceedings to the Assessing Officer after finding the denial of a fair hearing violated natural justice, but imposed a Rs. 10,000 cost per appeal on the assessee for deliberate non-cooperation despite repeated notices. This sets a clear precedent that procedural fairness must be upheld, but willful obstruction in tax litigation carries financial consequences.

The Gujarat High Court ruled that quasi-judicial authorities under the Gujarat Regularization of Unauthorized Development Act must independently evaluate applications and afford hearings, rather than mechanically adopting panel advocate opinions. The judgment underscores that procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience, impacting all regularization applicants in the state.

Bombay High Court rules that GST authorities must provide opportunity of hearing before provisional attachment of property, relying on Radha Krishan Industries precedent.

Bombay High Court rules that GST authorities must provide written opportunity of hearing before passing adverse orders under Section 75(4) of CGST Act, 2017.