17 July 2025 Property Law >> Personal Law  

This petition of Manubai & Others v/s The State of Maharashtra, Through Minister/Secretary, Mumbai & Others challenges an order dated August 27, 2014, issued by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue), Maharashtra State, which allowed an appeal filed by respondents 5 to 7. This ministerial order effectively set aside previous decisions by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik, and other subordinate authorities, leading to the cancellation of mutation entry No. 4444, which had been sanctioned in favor of the petitioners in 1963. The mutation entry, recorded by consent of the original owner, created a new Survey No. 115/296/3 and transferred ownership to Petitioner No. 1, Manubai Kondiram Jawale.

The core of the petitioners' challenge rests on the violation of principles of natural justice. They argued that the Minister's order was:

1. Non-speaking and unreasoned: It merely summarized the appellants' (respondents 5-7) submissions and then directly stated the conclusion without providing any justification or addressing the reasoning of the lower authorities.
2. Passed without reasonable opportunity of hearing: The petitioners, residents of Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar, received notice on August 11, 2014, for a hearing scheduled in Mumbai on August 12, 2014, which they contend was insufficient time to appear and present their case.

The factual background reveals that the challenge to the 1963 mutation entry was initiated by respondents 5 to 7 in 2012, after an inordinate delay of 40 years. Both the District Superintendent of Land Records, Ahmednagar, and the Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik, had dismissed their appeals, primarily due to the original owner's consent and the unexplained delay. The Deputy Director specifically noted that Bhaguji Chapaji Jayapatre had provided consent on Hissa Form No. 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners emphasized that the impugned order adversely affected the petitioners' long-standing ownership rights and should be set aside on the grounds of procedural impropriety, citing Supreme Court judgments that mandate reasoned orders and adequate opportunity for hearing in quasi-judicial proceedings (e.g., Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and Kranti Associates Private Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan).

Conversely, the Assistant Government Pleader, representing respondents 1-4, contended that the mutation entry needed to be canceled due to the withdrawal of the consolidation scheme for Chande-Kasare village. However, the affidavit-in-reply did not address the specific allegations of natural justice violations. Counsel for respondent No. 7 also argued the merits, stating that the withdrawal of the consolidation scheme justified the cancellation of the entry and that notices were duly served. While acknowledging the short notice period, he stated the hearing was adjourned, giving more time.

The Court, upon review, found that the Minister's order was indeed non-speaking, lacking any discernible reasons for overturning the well-reasoned orders of the lower authorities. It simply recorded the contentions of the appellants and then presented a conclusion. The Court stressed that reasoned orders are crucial for transparency, accountability, and proper judicial review.

Regarding the notice, the Court observed that notices of only five days, effectively providing three days to travel from Kopargaon to Mumbai for a hearing, was not a "reasonable notice," especially given the complexities of the 40-year-old land dispute. The hasty conduct of proceedings, without any apparent urgency, further compounded the issue of inadequate opportunity for hearing.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the impugned order demonstrated a clear violation of the principles of natural justice due to both the absence of reasons and the lack of reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing. The Court did not delve into the merits of the land dispute itself, focusing solely on the procedural flaws.

Therefore, the order dated August 27, 2014, passed by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue), was quashed and set aside. The matter has been remanded to the Hon’ble Minister for a fresh decision, with a direction to afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties, preferably within a period of three months.