Nooralam Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 6885 MP

                                      1



                HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                         W.P.No.22128/2021

           (Nooralam Khan Vs. State of M.P. & others)


Jabalpur, Dated : 27.10.2021


      Shri R.S. Verma, counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Manoj Kushwaha, panel lawyer for the respondents/State.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated

20.7.2021, (Annexure P-2), passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,

(Revenue), Manpur, District Umariya; whereby, the order dated 23.09.1987

granting permission for sale of land in question was set aside.

It is argued that no proper opportunity of hearing was granted to

the petitioner nor the proper enquiry was made with respect to the land in

question and despite permission being granted for sale of the land as

reflected from Annexure P-1, dated 23.9.1987, the order has been passed

only on the ground that certified copy of the order dated 23.09.1987 could

not be filed by the petitioner. It is submitted that records pertaining to the

orders is in possession of the authorities itself. The aforesaid aspect could

have been verified. Even in the absence of complete enquiry into the

matter as is reflected from the impugned order, the Patwari has not

conducted the complete enquiry and has only produced the enquiry for the

year 1988-1989, the order is passed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer.

In such circumstances, it is a non speaking order. It appears to be without

application of mind, therefore, prays for quashment of the order.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State has pointed out

that alternative remedy of filing of an appeal against the impugned order is

available to the petitioner, but he could not dispute this fact that the order

impugned does not reflect the enquiry being conducted by the Patwari and

also the fact that the order has been passed only on the ground that the

certified copy of the same could not be filed by the petitioner. The order

appears to be non speaking order and without application of mind by the

authorities. Learned counsel for the State could not dispute the fact that

identical issue was considered with respect to the part of the land in

question in Writ Petition No.19146/2021 (Smt. Jalbhartha Devi and another

Vs. State of M.P. and others), decided on 23.09.2021.

The law is settled with respect to following the Principles of Natural

Justice and assigning reasons in the impugned order, as has been held in

by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited and

Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC

496; wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:-

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi- judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

(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) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405 , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".

After going through the impugned order, dated 20.7.2021,

(Annexure P-2), it is reflected that the guidelines as formulated by the

Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited (supra) are

not followed by the learned Sub Divisional Officer. In such circumstances,

despite there being an alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this

Court is having jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India as same is passed without following the Principles of

Natural Justice and fair play.

Accordingly, the petition is entertained by this Court and the order

impugned dated 20.07.2021, (Annexure P-2), passed by the Sub Divisional

Officer (Revenue), Manpur, District Umariya is hereby quashed. The matter

is remanded back to the learned Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Manpur,

District Umariya for reconsideration of the matter of the petitioner and pass

a well reasoned order after providing the opportunity of hearing to them.

The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months

from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The petition is disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE taj.

Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN

TAJAMMUL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=13e90ad4646c5d70faccde1bb306d26684198011bca27e

HUSSAIN KHAN 8bff4922a823a58219, pseudonym=37D8F5DA146A17B9A1F919285A592F1435B1C2CC, serialNumber=7791D4712A29D70FB52789F097FA9AA5E006D51 CB9A891A390BA544C1C5BAB9B, cn=TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2021.10.29 16:17:41 +05'30'