High Court
Facts
9273.14wp(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.9273 OF 20141]Manubai w/o Kondiram Jawale,Age: 55 years, Occu: Agril.,2]Gokul s/o Vishnu Landge,Age: 50 years, Occu: Agril.3]Vitthal s/o Bhaskar Jawale,Age: 30 years, Occu: Agril,All R/o Sonwadi, Tq. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar ….PETITIONERSVERSUS1]The State of Maharashtra,Through Minister/Secretary,Revenue Department,Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,Mumbai-322]The Collector, Ahmednagar3]The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Kopargaon,Dist. Ahmednagar4]The Deputy Superintendent of Land Revenue,Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar5]Namdeo s/o Bhaguji Jayapatre,Age: 60 years, Occu: Agril,6]Bhakar s/o Bhaguji Jayapatre,Age: 58 years, Occu: Agril., 9273.14wp(2) 7]Mandabai w/o Arjun BhosaleAge: 35 years, Occu: Agril.,8]Yamunabai w/o Gokul Landge,Age: 40 years, Occu: Agril.9]Appasaheb s/o Gokul Landge,Age: 30 years, Occu: Agril,All R/o. Sonwadi, Tq. Kopargaon,Dist. Ahmednagar ….RESPONDENTS ….Mr P. C. Mayure, Advocate for petitioners Mr S. K. Shirse, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4Mr C. K. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.7 CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. RESERVED ON : 17th June, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 17th July, 2025JUDGMENT :-1.Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally byconsent of the parties. 2. Heard Advocate Mr P. C. Mayure, learned counsel for thepetitioners, Advocate Mr S. K. Shirse, learned Assistant GovernmentPleader for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Advocate Mr C. K. Shinde,learned counsel for respondent No.7.3.This petition takes exception to the order dated27/08/2014, passed by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue), Maharashtra
Legal Reasoning
9273.14wp(14) 15.The position of law regarding the finer aspects of theprinciples of natural justice is reiterated in several judgments of theHon’ble Supreme Court and reference can be made to the judgment inthe matter of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial TaxDepartment, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla andBrothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785, of which relevant paragraph Nos.12 to14 are reproduced below:“12.In exercise of the power of judicial review, the concept ofreasoned orders/actions has been enforced equally by the foreigncourts as by the courts in India. The administrative authority andtribunals are obliged to give reasons, absence whereof couldrender the order liable to judicial chastise. Thus, it will not be farfrom absolute principle of law that the Courts should recordreasons for its conclusions to enable the appellate or higherCourts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately and inaccordance with law. It is the reasoning alone, that can enable ahigher or an appellate court to appreciate the controversy inissue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoningrecorded by the Court whose order is impugned, is sustainable inlaw and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach. Tosub-serve the purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it isessential that the Courts should record reasons for itsconclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission stage orafter regular hearing.13.At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Courthas consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is anessential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant whoapproaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with lawis entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of hisprayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons 9273.14wp(15) could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice tothe affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper theproper administration of justice. These principles are not onlyapplicable to administrative or executive actions, but they applywith equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precisionto judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causesprejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as thatlitigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with theCourt in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in histaking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Courtin the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer tocertain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courtswhich have taken this view.14.The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients;firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by theaction of the authorities should be given notice to show causethereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, theorders so passed by the authorities should give reason forarriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind.Violation of either of them could in the given facts andcircumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rulebeing applicable to the administrative authorities certainlyrequires that the judgment of the Court should meet with thisrequirement with higher degree of satisfaction. The order of anadministrative authority may not provide reasons like ajudgment but the order must be supported by the reasons ofrationality. The distinction between passing of an order by anadministrative or quasi-judicial authority has practicallyextinguished and both are required to pass reasoned orders.16.Further, the position of law is reflected in the recent judgment ofthe Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Project Director,U.P. Education for All Project Board and others Vs. Saroj Maurya 9273.14wp(16) and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2602, which again reiterates thenecessity of recording reasons in orders passed by the quasi-judicialauthorities.17.While dealing with the rival contentions in this regard, itis profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,onwhich reliance is also placed by the counsel for petitioner, in thematter of Kranti Associates Private Ltd. and another Vs. MasoodAhmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496, in which afterconsidering the series of earlier judgments, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt has summarized its conclusion in paragraph Nos. 47, which isextracted hereinbelow :-“47.Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been torecord reasons, even in administrative decisions, if suchdecisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons insupport of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant toserve the wider principle of justice that justice must not onlybe done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a validrestraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial andquasi-judicial or even administrative power. 9273.14wp(17) (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercisedby the decision-maker on relevant grounds and bydisregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable acomponent of a decision-making process as observingprinciples of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial andeven by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review bysuperior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countriescommitted to rule of law and constitutional governance is infavour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This isvirtually the life blood of judicial decision-making justifyingthe principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these dayscan be as different as the judges and authorities who deliverthem. All these decisions serve one common purpose whichis to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors havebeen objectively considered. This is important for sustainingthe litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for bothjudicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is notcandid enough about his/her decision making process then itis impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithfulto the doctrine of precedent or to principles ofincrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) ………………………………………………...”. 9273.14wp(18) 18.By harping on the contentions about violation ofprinciples of natural justice rather than contesting on merits, learnedcounsel for the petitioners submitted that the instant matter needs to beremanded to the Hon’ble Minister for reconsideration and a freshdecision on merits, with a direction for expeditious decision. AdvocateShinde, learned counsel for respondent No.7 even opposed thissubmission by stating that, since the consolidation scheme itself iswithdrawn, and the factual situation warrants cancellation of themutation entry, remand of the matter for fresh decision will be anexercise in futility. 19.In this regard, it has to be noted that the effect ofwithdrawal of consolidation scheme of village Chande-Kasare mayhave a bearing upon the controversy about continuing or deleting themutation entry No.4444, however, the issue ultimately involveschallenge to the rights of the petitioners with respect to the land inquestion and therefore, it needs to be decided by affording reasonableopportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The contentions raised byrespective parties about challenge to the mutation entry No.4444 canbe appropriately considered by the Hon’ble Minister after giving dueconsideration to the factual and legal aspects and by affording duenotice and appropriate opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 9273.14wp(19) Having regard to all the rival contentions, I am of the consideredopinion that this is a fit case in which the matter needs to be remandedto the Hon’ble Minister for deciding the appeal afresh by complyingthe principles of natural justice. It is clarified that in view of theglaring issues about non-speaking order and absence of reasonablenotice, the instant petition is decided on these issues only. Since thecounsel for petitioners raised the grounds of violation of principles ofnatural justice as primary contentions, there was no need to delve intothe merits of the alleged controversy about challenge to mutation entryno. 4444 and need for its cancellation on withdrawal of theconsolidation scheme. 20.In the light of above mentioned factual and legal aspects,the order dated 27/08/2014 passed by the Hon’ble Minister(Revenue)in appeal No.2014/P.K.131/J-6 is quashed and set aside. The matter isremanded to the Hon’ble Minister for fresh decision. It is directed thatthe appeal be decided afresh by affording reasonable opportunity ofhearing to both the parties, preferably within a period of three monthsfrom the date of receipt of this order.21.Writ Petition is partly allowed. 9273.14wp(20) 22.Rule is made absolute in above terms. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)sjk
Arguments
9273.14wp(3) State, in Appeal No.2014/P.K.131/J-6, by which, the appeal filed byrespondent Nos.5 to 7 is allowed by setting aside the orders passed bythe Deputy Director of Land Records, Nashik and other subordinateauthority. 4.The main thrust of the arguments of the petitioners isviolation of principles of natural justice. The petitioners primarycontention is that the impugned order is a non-speaking order beingunreasoned and having been passed without affording reasonableopportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it is an instance where theprinciples of natural justice are given complete go bye. In the backdropof the legal position about settled principles of natural justice, thelegality of the impugned order is being tested in this petition, which isfiled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.5.Factual matrix leading to the instant petition is succinctly putherein below :-(i)As regards the land situated at village Chande-Kasare, TalukaKopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar, a mutation entry No.4444was sanctioned on 12/06/1963 by the Survey Mamaledar,Nashik, creating a new Survey No.115/296/3. This mutationentry was recorded by consent of the original owner Shri 9273.14wp(4) Bhaguji Chapaji Jaypatre and the land came to be mutated inthe name of petitioner No.1/ Manubai Kondiram Jawale. (ii)After about 40 years, in the year 2012, the respondent No.5to 7 challenged the entry No.4444 before the DistrictSuperintendent of Land Records, Ahmednagar, vide AppealNo.30/2011.(iii)On 30/04/2012, this appeal came to be dismissed by givingdue consideration to the consent given by the original ownerBhaguji Chapaji Jayapatre in Form no. 4 and also byconsidering inordinate delay of 40 years about which noexplanation was offered . (iv)Feeling aggrieved by this order, respondent Nos.5 to 7 filedfurther appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records,Nashik, which came to be dismissed by order dated28/02/2014, thereby confirming the order passed by theDistrict Superintendent of Land Records, and consequently,confirming entry No.4444 which was sanctioned in the year1963. Pertinent to note that the Deputy Director hadcategorically observed that Bhaguji Chapaji Jayapatre had 9273.14wp(5) given consent on Hissa Form No.4 and accordingly, SurveyNo.115/296/3 was recorded as 8 Acre 32 Are in the name ofthe petitioners. (v)Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the DeputyDirector of Land Records, respondent Nos.5 to 7 filed appealbefore the Hon’ble Minister of Revenue, Maharashtra State,which came to be allowed by order dated 27/08/2014,consequently, canceling the mutation entry No.4444, whichwas sanctioned in the name of the petitioners in the year1963.(vi)The petitioners have raised challenge to this order by way ofthe instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia. 6.Advocate P. C. Mayure, learned counsel for the petitionersstrenuously submitted that the impugned order passed by the Hon’bleMinister is illegal and unconstitutional being violative of principles ofnatural justice. He submitted that the impugned order only refers tothe submissions advanced by the appellants in the appeal (respondentNos.5 to 7 herein) and straightway records conclusion about allowingthe appeal. Another limb of his arguments is absence of reasonable 9273.14wp(6) notice upon the petitioners, again resulting into violation of principlesof natural justice. He submitted that the impugned order reversing theorders passed by the District Superintendent of Land Records andDeputy Director of Land Records is detrimental to the rights of thepetitioners, in whose favour mutation entry was sanctioned in the year1963. He submitted that, as a consequence of the impugned order, thepetitioners ownership rights over their own land has come under cloudand therefore alleged that the impugned order amounts to miscarriageof justice. He submitted that the impugned order is liable to be setaside on this count alone. 7.To buttress his submissions Advocate Mayure, learned counselfor the petitioners relied upon the judgment in the matter of RaviYashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others, (2012) 4SCC 407 and Kranti Associates Private Ltd. and another Vs.Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC 496, and submittedthat the position of law is well settled that an unreasoned order passedby an authority exercising quasi-judicial powers without affordingreasonable opportunity of hearing is unsustainable in law. 8.The position of law dealing with various facets of the principlesof natural justice is fairly settled and by a series of judgments it is 9273.14wp(7) clarified that the person who is likely to be adversely affected by theaction of the authorities should be given a notice to show cause thereofand granted an opportunity of hearing and further that the orders sopassed by the authorities should contain reasons for arriving at anyconclusion reflecting proper application of mind. Violation of either ofthese principles could in the given facts and circumstances of the casevitiate the order itself.9.Advocate Mr S. K. Shirse, learned Assistant GovernmentPleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, by referring to theaffidavit-in-reply dated 09/04/2025, submitted that entry No.4444 wasrequired to be cancelled in view of the withdrawal of the consolidationscheme of the village Chande-Kasare. Pertinently, as regards theprimary contentions raised by the petitioners alleging violation ofprinciples of natural justice, the affidavit-in-reply is silent. Evenduring the course of arguments, learned A.G.P. submitted that theimpugned order refers to the submissions advanced by the appellantsas stated in paragraph Nos.1 to 4 of the order and the reasons forarriving at the conclusion thought not explicit are to be understood asimplicit in those submissions. 9273.14wp(8) 10.Advocate Mr C. K. Shinde, learned counsel forrespondent No.7 strongly opposed the petition, mainly by pointing outthe merits of the controversy. By referring to the affidavit-in-replydated 08/03/2022, he submitted that the cancellation of entry No.4444was warranted in view of the fact that the consolidation scheme wasnot implemented in village Chande-Kasare and therefore the mutationentry relatable to the consolidation scheme was liable to be cancelled.By referring to the letter dated 04/06/2013, issued by the DeputySuperintendent of Land Records, Kopargaon and by inviting attentionto a Notification dated 17/03/2025, issued by the Deputy Director ofLand Records, Nashik, he vehemently submitted that the consolidationscheme with respect of the village Chande-Kasare was withdrawn bythe Government and the same was not finalized. He thus submittedthat the entry No.4444 of the year 1963 was necessarily required to becancelled and thus tried to justify the impugned order. As regards thepetitioner’s arguments about violation of principles of natural justicehe submitted that the notice was duly served upon both partiesintimating the dates of hearing and also submitted that mentioningbrief reasons also amounts to compliance with natural justice. 11.In the light of above mentioned submissions, rivalcontentions now fall for my consideration. 9273.14wp(9) 12.It is pertinent to note that the controversy although arosewith respect to challenge to the mutation entry No.4444, which wassanctioned in favour of the petitioners in the year 1963, however, themain grounds of challenge in this petition are about violation ofprinciples of natural justice. The petitioners primary contention is thatthe impugned order is illegal being a non-speaking order. A perusal ofthe impugned order clearly shows that, after referring to the challengeraised by the appellants in the appeal (respondent Nos.5 to 7 herein),the contentions advanced by them are stated in paragraph Nos.1 to 4and thereafter, straightway the inferences are recorded in one sentence,expressing thereby that, having regard to the contentions, the entryNo.4444 deserves to be canceled. It is, thus seen that, no reasons arementioned for arriving at the conclusions. There is no consideration ofthe rival contentions or any comments about the reasons which werementioned in the orders passed by the District Superintendent of LandRecords and Deputy Director of Land Records, while reversing theirorders. There is no consideration of the factual issues, on the basis ofwhich, the authorities have earlier elaborately decided the controversy.As such, neither there is any consideration of the actual controversyinvolved, nor there is mention of submissions of the respondents(petitioners herein), nor the reasons for arriving at conclusions. Thus, 9273.14wp(10) the impugned order is clearly a non-speaking order. It is crucial tonote in this regard that the impugned order overturns the two orderspassed by the authorities viz. the District Superintendent of LandRecords and Deputy Director of Land Records, who have passed wellreasoned orders dealing with the controversy. Further, the crucial issueabout challenge to the mutation entry after unexplained delay of about40 years was required to be considered in view of the prejudice likelyto be caused to the petitioners herein. The impugned order sansconsideration of the actual controversy and reasons for the conclusionsdepicts violation of principles of natural justice.13. The impugned order is an instance of an order determining therights of the parties without mentioning any reasons at all. It depictsan approach adopted by quasi judicial authorities to pass orders eitherby way of a routine formality or by consciously dodging the realcontroversy. The impugned order is an instance of an order which ispassed by simply referring to the submissions of the parties and thenstraightway mentioning the conclusions. Absence of reasons makes itimpossible for the parties to know as to what weighed in the mind ofthe authority and it becomes impossible for the appellate authority todiscern the reasoning. This kind of lack of transparency ultimately 9273.14wp(11) leads to multiplicity of proceedings shattering the faith of thecontesting litigants. Such an order, on its face, is arbitrary andabsolutely unsustainable.14.Another forceful submission advanced on behalf of thepetitioners alleging violation of principles of natural justice is aboutabsence of reasonable notice about the proceedings. The petitionershave vehemently submitted that the notice of the proceedings beforethe Hon’ble Minister was served upon them on 11/08/2014, whichmentioned that the matter was fixed before the Hon’ble Minister atMumbai on 12/08/2014 i.e. on the next day. By inviting Court’sattention to the notice dated 07/08/2014, which is filed at Exhibit ‘D’with the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted thatthis notice of hearing which was served upon the petitioners who arethe residents of Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar, giving intimation aboutthe next date of hearing to be conducted at Mumbai on 12/08/2024,cannot at all be considered to be a reasonable notice. It is submittedthat the notice appears to have been issued only by way of formalityand it was impossible for the petitioners who are residents ofKopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar to attend the matter for hearing atMumbai before the Hon’ble Minister on the next date. While refuting 9273.14wp(12) this submission learned counsels for the respondents have tried toshow that, although the proceedings were kept for hearing before theHon’ble Minister on 12/08/2014, however, the same were adjournedand the final order came to be passed on 27/08/2014. To highlight thissubmission, learned counsel for respondent No.7 has placed on recorda copy of the order sheet of the proceedings before the Hon’bleMinister, which he had received under the Right to Information Act,2005. On the basis of the order sheet of the proceedings, he hassubmitted that the petitioners had received the notices on 11/08/2014with respect to the hearing which was scheduled on 12/08/2014,however, on 12/08/2014, the hearing was adjourned to 19/08/2014 (i.e.after seven days) and the case was closed for orders on 19/08/2014. Hetherefore submitted that the hearing was not held on the next day. Acareful perusal of the order sheet submitted by respondent No.7 onrecord shows the manner in which the proceedings were conductedbefore the Hon’ble Minister. Pertinent to note, the orders sheet ofearlier dates shows that the matter was fixed after a period of five daysfrom the date of notice, as can be seen from notice dated 10-07-2024for scheduled hearing on 15-07-2024, further the notice dated07-08-2024 for scheduled hearing on 12-08-2024. As such, it is clearthat the notices of hearing at Mumbai were served upon the petitioners 9273.14wp(13) who are residents of Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar, only five daysprior to date of hearing. Thus excluding the date on which the noticeis served, the person gets only three days to reach at Mumbai.Therefore the petitioners contention that this kind of short notice is nota reasonable notice, needs appreciation. Pertinently, it is nobody’s casethat the matter was in the category of ‘time bound matters’ and itrequired hearing by giving very short dates. In view of the controversyinvolved in the matter, raising challenge to the mutation entry of theyear 1963, after a period of 40 years, and challenge to the orderspassed by the District Superintendent of Land Records and DeputyDirector of Land Records, the notice granting three days time cannotbe considered to be a reasonable notice. An opportunity of hearingnecessarily means affording reasonable opportunity of hearing bygiving reasonable notice to the parties. The conduct of the proceedingin such a hasty manner, in absence of any kind of mandate for earlydecision of the proceeding, creates a doubt about compliance of fairprocedure. In the light of the order sheet referred above,demonstrating the manner in which the proceedings were conducted,the contentions of the petitioners that they were not affordedreasonable opportunity of hearing, stands fortified.