Bombay HC Dismisses Premature Plea Against Inter-Departmental Communications in Land Dispute.


03 April 2025 Property/Real Estate Law >> Property & Real Estate  

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by Poonam and Patel Construction Limited (PPCL), challenging a series of communications issued by the Collector of Mumbai and the Department of Revenue and Forest. The court, in its order, held that the communications in question, dated January 31, 2024, October 10, 2024, and January 28, 2025, were merely internal exchanges of views between government authorities and did not constitute any adverse action against the petitioner, thus rendering the writ petition premature.

The case stemmed from a 1974 sanction granted by the State Government to PPCL for leasing a plot of land in Worli, subject to certain conditions including land reclamation and garden maintenance. PPCL claimed to have been in possession and operating on the land accordingly. Subsequent proceedings before the Collector regarding the mutation of the property card and a challenge to a proposed slum scheme led to an order in 2013 directing an independent entry for the Revenue Department and exclusion of the land from the slum scheme. This order was upheld by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in 2017, and a subsequent writ petition by the aggrieved society was admitted by the High Court with an interim order against acting on certain observations of the Collector.


 

 

PPCL argued that despite this, the Revenue Authorities and the Collector's office proceeded to issue the impugned communications, effectively re-opening settled issues without providing an opportunity for a hearing. Counsel for PPCL invoked the principle of constructive res judicata, contending that earlier decisions should not be revisited in this manner, and cited several Supreme Court judgments to support their arguments for judicial intervention.

However, the respondents, represented by the learned Special Counsel, countered that PPCL had failed to fulfill its obligations under the 1974 sanction, allowing encroachments on the land. They pointed out that PPCL's name was not entered in the revenue records as a lessee, a finding recorded by the Collector in 2013. The court was also informed of a pending show cause notice issued to PPCL in 2019 regarding the absence of a lease deed and alleged breaches of conditions. The respondents argued that the challenged communications were simply internal departmental exchanges and did not provide PPCL with a legal basis to challenge them, citing a Supreme Court precedent emphasizing that internal government notings do not confer legal rights.

The division bench of the Bombay High Court, after considering the arguments and perusing the documents, concurred with the respondents' contention. The court observed that the communication dated January 31, 2024, merely furnished factual information to the Revenue and Forest Department and proposed action. The communication dated October 10, 2024, directed steps concerning survey numbers and noted the permission for redevelopment under the Slum Areas Act, but was not addressed to PPCL and took no direct action against it. Similarly, the communication dated January 28, 2025, also proposed steps related to survey numbers in response to a communication from the Revenue and Forest Department.

The High Court explicitly stated that these communications were "merely communications between the State Authorities" and did not, at present, provide PPCL with any cause for grievance as no adverse action had been initiated based on them. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Pimpri Chinchwad New Township Development Authority vs. Vishnudev Cooperating Housing Society and Others, which held that internal government file notings do not carry legal sanctity until a decision is approved and communicated to the concerned party.

Consequently, the High Court found it unnecessary to delve into the principle of constructive res judicata, as the very basis for the challenge – an adverse action – was absent. The court clarified that its decision did not examine the merits of PPCL's claims and explicitly stated that if any adverse action were proposed against PPCL based on these communications by issuing a notice, PPCL would be at liberty to defend such action or challenge it in accordance with the law. The court also referred to a recent Supreme Court judgment (Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour Vs. Chief Executive Officer) which acknowledged that internal deliberations can be examined for judicial review to ensure the decision's integrity, but this was deemed relevant at a later stage if an actual decision impacting PPCL were to be taken.

Ultimately, the Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition as being filed prematurely, keeping all issues open for future consideration if and when any concrete adverse action is initiated against PPCL. The court also dismissed the interim applications filed by intervenors for the same reasons. A request by the petitioner's counsel for maintaining status quo was also rejected.