HC Closing Case Based On Respondent's Affidavit Without Giving Petitioner Chance To Respond Violates Natural Justice Principles: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, while quashing the acquisition proceedings initiated by a development authority against the appellant, observed that the High Court's reliance on the authority's affidavit without providing the appellant with an opportunity to respond is violative of natural justice principles.

“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 herein to meet the averments made in the said affidavit would be in violation of the principles of natural justice.,” held the bench of Justices B.R Gavai and K. Vinod Chandran.

Essentially, a preliminary notification regarding the acquisition was issued by the authority. However, in the final notification, a certain area was excluded from the acquisition. Challenging this acquisition, the present appellant's father approached the High Court. Subsequently, the division bench permitted owners of certain land, including those whose lands were adjoining the ones which were excluded from acquisition, to make an application to the authority.

Accordingly, the appellant approached the authority arguing that since the adjoining land had been excluded from the acquisition, the appellant was also entitled to the same benefit. However, the authority rejected this claim. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court. Although a single-judge bench granted relief to the appellant, the same was reversed by the Division Bench. Thus, the present matter came before the Supreme Court.

Pertinently, the impugned judgment had relied on an affidavit produced by the authority to hold that the land on the western side of the appellant's land already stood acquired. Thus, right at the outset, the Apex Court pointed out that the appellant was not afforded any opportunity to respond to the above-mentioned affidavit.

“It is pertinent to note that though the said affidavit was filed on 12th September, 2019 the Division Bench, without giving any opportunity to the appellant herein to respond to the said affidavit, closed the matter for hearing on the very same day, though the judgment was subsequently pronounced on 27th September, 2019.

The well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge as has been reproduced by us hereinabove has been reversed by the learned Division Bench based on the affidavit of the authority without giving an opportunity to the appellant herein to meet the averments made therein.,” the Court said.

On this ground alone, the Court allowed the present appeal while remanding the matter to the High Court. The Court also made it clear that, if required, it is open for the High Court to direct any further spot inspection.

Appearances:

Petitioner: Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Ranvijay Singh Chandel, Adv. Ms. Geetanjali Bedi, Adv.

Respondent: Mr. Mayank Jain, Adv. Ms. Uditha Chakravarthy, Adv. Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, AOR Mr. Tarun, Adv.

Case Name: D.M. JAGADISH vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 172

Click here to read/ download the judgment