IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2736 OF 2001 Vishnupant Ganpatrao Patill..... ..... ..... Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors... .... .... Respondents Mr.S.G.Deshmukh, i/by Mr.A.V.Anturkar, Adv. For the petitioner. Ms.M.S.Thakur, AGP for the State. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 8th JULY 2008. PC: The petitioner has approached this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the order dated 29.3.2001 canceling the order passed in favour of the petitioner dated 22.6.2000 should be quashed as it is in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in question. Vide order dated 22.6.2000 the Competent Authority had directed that the land be given back to the petitioner in terms of the order. It was also specifically noticed in that order that even the Pune Housing Development Board had recommended that the land be returned to the petitioner though part of it had been allotted to the said Board. This order was not executed in favour of the petitioner. 1 However without issuing any show cause notice or granting any opportunity to the petitioner the respondent-authority on their own passed an order dated 29.3.2001. As already noticed the principal ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice and is contrary to the basic principles of law. 2. The facts are not in dispute. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made no attempt to show to us that any notice to show cause was given to the petitioner or even the petitioner was granted any kind of hearing before passing of the order dated 29.3.2001. 3. As is evident from the undisputed facts appearing from the record the order dated 29.3.2001 is violative of principles of natural justice. The principles of audi alteram partem require that affected party must be heard before any order adverse to the interest of the party can be passed by the authorities concerned. In these circumstances we set aside the order dated 29.3.2001 with liberty to the respondent-State to pass order afresh, if they so choose, in accordance with law. Writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 2