Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Shanti Devi vs Sunil Singh Bhadouriya on 26 February, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 26 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
MISC. PETITION No. 2026 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SMT SHANTI DEVI W/O LATE SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN
CHOUBEY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
AGRICULTURIST R/O SHRI RAM JANKI MANDIR
KUYIAPURA, DATIA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI S.S. RAWAT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SUNIL SINGH BHADOURIYA OCCUPATION : NAIB
TEHSILDAR INDARGARH CIRCULE KUDARI
DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PUNIT DUBEY OCCUPATION: PATWARI HALKA
PADARI TEHSIL INDARGARH CIRCLE KUDARI
DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE COLLECTOR DATIA, DISTRICT DATIA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SEODA DIVISION
SEODA, DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. TEHSILDAR CIRCLE INDERGARH DISTRICT
DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.S. KUSHWAHA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
directed against the order dated 21.3.2023 passed by the Collector Datia,
whereby the Revision filed by the petitioner, against the order dated 28.2.2023
passed by Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Division Seoda, District Datia has
been dismissed without assigning any reason and without providing any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner thus had passed an order which is
contrary to law with further direction to Tehsildar that after harvesting seize the
crops of land in question and hand it over to a third person and after its sale
deposit the amount in the Mandir account.
2. The aforesaid aspect could not be controverted by the learned
Government Advocate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, had referred to an
order dated 21.3.2023 passed by the Collector, District Datia and submitted
that in the order impugned the Collector has not assigned any reason to
dismiss the revision of the petitioner and therefore, the order is non-speaking in
nature and also without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
therefore, the order is contrary to the settled principle of law and, therefore, it
has to be set aside.
4. In wake of the submission as made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 21.3.2023 is an
unreasoned and without speaking order, which in the light of judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of in the case of M/s Kranti Associates (P)
Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, reported in 2010(9) SCC 496 (para 51) is
unsustainable, wherein it is observed that even Quasi Judicial authorities are
required to pass reasoned and speaking order and in absence thereof, it could
be said that principles of natural justice has not been followed. Accordingly, the
petition is allowed, the order dated 21.3.2023 is hereby set aside and the matter
is remanded back to the Collector to decide afresh on its own merits, in
accordance with law.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
Pawar
