NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Property Law: Appellant Denied Fair Hearing, Authorities Must Reassess Case: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of procedural fairness in legal proceedings, the Supreme Court of India, presided over by Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, has set aside the orders of the Gujarat High Court and other authorities in a civil appeal concerning a land sale transaction under the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.

The apex court's decision came in the wake of an appeal filed by Kanaiyalal Mafatlal Patel against the State of Gujarat and others, challenging the High Court's dismissal of his appeal regarding the legality of a land sale transaction and the subsequent eviction order.

In a statement that highlights the essence of the judgment, the court observed, "the fact also remains that he was never given a proper hearing on merits by the authorities before holding against him." This observation underlines the court's stance on ensuring fair and comprehensive hearings in legal disputes, especially those involving complex property laws.

The dispute centered around ancestral agricultural land in Village Ambapur, Gujarat. The appellant contended that the sale transaction in his favor was legal and that he had been deprived of a fair chance to present his case. The Supreme Court noted discrepancies in the handling of the case by the authorities, particularly regarding the proper service of notice and the opportunity for a full hearing.

In their judgment, the Justices emphasized the need for a detailed re-examination of the case, stating, "All these aspects would require verification and adjudication upon evaluation of evidence." This remark signals a call for a more thorough and evidence-based approach in adjudicating property disputes.

The court's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration on both facts and law signifies a pivotal moment for the appellant. It also sets a precedent emphasizing the importance of due process and the right to a fair hearing in the Indian legal system.

As per the ruling, the case will now return to the original authority, the Prant Officer in Gandhinagar, for a comprehensive reassessment, with the directive to complete this exercise expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Date of Decision: December 6, 2023

Kanaiyalal Mafatlal Patel  VS The State of Gujarat and others.

Latest Legal News