The Supreme Court, while setting aside the acquisition proceedings initiated by a development authority against the appellant, held that the High Court’s reliance on the authority’s affidavit—without granting the appellant an opportunity to respond—violated the principles of natural justice.
“We find that the approach of the Division Bench in relying on the affidavit of the authority and closing the matter on the same day, without giving an opportunity to the appellant to counter the claims made in the affidavit, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice,” observed a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran.
Case Background
The dispute arose from a land acquisition process initiated by the development authority. A preliminary notification was issued, but in the final notification, certain areas were excluded from the acquisition. The appellant’s father challenged the acquisition before the High Court, leading to an order allowing landowners—especially those whose plots were adjacent to the excluded lands—to apply for similar exemptions.
Acting on this, the appellant approached the authority, arguing that since neighboring lands had been exempted, the same benefit should apply to his land. However, the authority rejected this request, prompting the appellant to file a writ petition. While a single-judge bench ruled in the appellant’s favor, the Division Bench reversed this decision, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A key issue before the Supreme Court was the High Court’s reliance on an affidavit submitted by the development authority, which stated that the land west of the appellant’s property had already been acquired. The Court noted that the appellant was not given any opportunity to respond to this affidavit before the matter was closed.
“It is pertinent to note that although the affidavit was filed on September 12, 2019, the Division Bench closed the matter for hearing on the very same day—without giving the appellant an opportunity to respond—despite delivering its judgment later on September 27, 2019.”
The Court further observed that the well-reasoned order of the single-judge bench had been overturned solely on the basis of the authority’s affidavit, without affording the appellant a fair hearing.
On this ground alone, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the High Court for reconsideration. It also clarified that the High Court is free to order a fresh site inspection if necessary.
