#Quasi-Judicial Authority

The Allahabad High Court has invoked its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to compel a Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide a two-decade-old land partition case within one year, reinforcing that prolonged administrative inaction in statutory adjudication violates the right to timely justice. This directive, issued without examining merits, sets a critical precedent for quasi-judicial authorities handling land disputes under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act.

MP High Court sets aside a demolition order for failure to provide reasoned justification, reinforcing that quasi-judicial authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice. The ruling protects landowners from arbitrary actions, mandating prior permission consideration and cogent reasoning in administrative orders.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of registered sale deeds or nullify mutations without a reasoned order. The decision reinforces that quasi-judicial bodies must follow due process, protecting bona fide purchasers from arbitrary cancellations of property rights.

MP High Court rules that ordering a fresh inquiry report without introducing new evidence violates principles of natural justice, rendering the departmental proceedings biased. The ruling underscores that disciplinary authorities must not reopen inquiries based on identical material, affecting service law and employment disputes involving bank officers and public servants.

Patna High Court rules that an appellate authority under the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board Act, 1981 cannot exercise jurisdiction without formal notification in the official gazette. The judgment underscores strict compliance with statutory requirements, quashing orders passed by unauthorized authorities and setting a precedent for administrative law in quasi-judicial matters.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a review order that revoked a land sale permit without notice to affected parties, affirming that even quasi-judicial bodies must adhere to the foundational principles of audi alteram partem and reasoned decision-making. This ruling protects property rights of marginalized communities and sets a binding standard for administrative reviews across state revenue authorities.

The Delhi High Court quashed a Contract Labour Board order for failing to address jurisdictional objections and record reasons, reinforcing that quasi-judicial bodies must adhere to natural justice principles even under consent orders. This ruling mandates reasoned decisions in all adjudicatory proceedings, impacting employers, unions, and regulatory authorities under the Contract Labour Act.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court struck down a revision order issued by the Chief Secretary against his own appellate decision, affirming that even high-ranking administrative officers cannot act as judges in their own cases. This ruling reinforces that natural justice applies to all quasi-judicial functions, regardless of rank, and invalidates internal review mechanisms that bypass impartiality.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a Land Acquisition Collector, acting as a quasi-judicial authority, cannot appeal an order setting aside its own award under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The decision reinforces the principle that quasi-judicial bodies cannot challenge their own rulings, impacting land acquisition proceedings and administrative law.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that Collectors acting under Section 11 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act cannot dismiss title disputes summarily on res judicata grounds without framing issues and evaluating evidence. The judgment reinforces quasi-judicial obligations, impacting landowners, Gram Panchayats, and revenue authorities in Punjab and Haryana.

Bombay High Court rules that a corrigendum under MOFA Section 11(3) cannot be used to increase granted built-up area, as it violates the finality of quasi-judicial orders. The judgment underscores that administrative authorities lack inherent power to reopen concluded matters without express statutory authorization, impacting property developers and housing societies.

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.

Chhattisgarh High Court holds that CESTAT must issue reasoned orders when setting aside adjudicating authorities' findings; mere reliance on precedents without analysis is legally unsustainable.