Orissa High Court
Maharaj Bairagi And Anr vs Collector And Revisional .... Opposite ... on 22 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1377 of 2024
(An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950)
Maharaj Bairagi and Anr. .... Petitioner
-versus-
Collector and Revisional .... Opposite Parties
Authority, Malkangiri and others
Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical Mode):
For Petitioner - Mr. Maheswar Mohanty,
Advocate.
For Opposite Parties - Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,
Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing and Judgment :22.07.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for
quashing the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by
the Collector & Revisional Authority, Malkangiri (O.P. No.1) in S.R.P.
Case No.18 of 2018 on the ground that, the said impugned order dated
20.04.2023 (Annexure-8) is not a speaking order. Because, that order has
been passed by the O.P. No.1 without assigning any reason.
2. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.
3. In order to bring the impugned order (Annexure-8) into picture, I
thought it proper to place the same on the record, which is as follows:-
"20.04.2023 The case is taken up to day. Both the Advocate for the
petitioner as well as petitioner are present. Heard the learned
advocate. The petitioner Maharaja Bairagi & Jagannath Bairagi both
are S/o Atul Bairagi of village M.V-23 Po Mariwada. Both the
petitioner are bonafide refugee from east Pakistan and settled in the
village M.V-23 Po Mariwada and allotted with landed properties an
extent of Ac. 4.50 cents vide Khata No 27 plot No 57/15 and 75/3 of
Balakati Mouza. At that time of Settlement Operation the Settlement
Authority exchanged that land with land of one Manoranjan Biswas
and kept plot No 324 (Hc.1.470 in govt. Khata. Hence the petitioner has
filed a SRP case for correction RoR. Perused the report of Tahasildar,
Malkangiri as well as the P.W.C of ASO Jeypore wherein it has been
reported that the petitioner is a settler of village M.V-23 and was
allotted with Ac. 5.20 cents of land at Balakati Mouza vide Khata No 27
by DNK authorities. As per the Hal settlement, the petitioner issued two
plots vide Khata No 114 and 273 respectively that the total extent of
allotted land under Mouza Balkati is Hc. 2.279 and Mouza Mariwada
is Hc. 0.475. During the year 1997 the Khatadar, sold 4 No's of plot
from the same Khata measuring an extent of Hc. 1.421. The Tahasildar
reported that the claimed Govt. land under Mouza Balakati vide Khata
No 260 and plot No 324 to an extent of Hc.1.470 under AJA Khata is a
barren land petitioner is not in possession over the same.
In view of above fact supra, I am not satisfied with the 01
submission made by the petitioner in his revision petition as the claim
of the petitioner is not genuine and got no merit. Hence I am inclined to
order that the revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be
rejected, so it is rejected.
Order pronounced in the open Court and given under my hand
and seal of the Court on this day the 20th April. 2023.
(To Dict.)
Collector & Revisional Authority,
Malkangiri Sd/-
Collector & Revisional Authority,
Malkangiri"
The above order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by O.P.
No.1 in S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018 is a non-speaking order, as the same is
not backed/supported by any reason.
That apart, the O.P. No.1 has not given his own view in the
impugned order, why he (O.P. No.1) interfered with the impugned order
dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Tahasildar, Malkangiri in S.R.P. Case
No.18 of 2018.
For which, it is held that, the impugned order dated 20.04.2023
(Annexure-8) has been passed by the O.P. No.1 without application of
mind as well as without any reason. So, the impugned order vide
Annexure-8 is a non-speaking order.
4. It is the settled propositions of law that, when any order is not
backed/supported by any reason and the same is passed without
application of mind terming that order as non-speaking order, the said
order cannot be sustainable under law. Because as per law, that order is
against the principles of natural justice.
5. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in
the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Sebastiani Lakra and Ors. Vrs.
National Insurance Co. Ltd reported and another reported in
2018(4) CCC 50 (SC), every judicial order must contain reason.
No judicial order is complete without reasons.
(ii) In a case between State of Rajasthan Vrs. Rajendra
Prasad Jain reported in (2008)15 SCC 711, reason is the heartbeat
of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.
(iii) In a case between Atul Kuchhal Vrs. Hem Ram and
another reported in 2015(1) CCC 640 (Rajasthan), an order which
does not reveal ground for coming to a conclusion, the same falls
in the category of non-speaking order.
(iv) In a case between U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vrs.
Sheo Narain Kushwaha & Ors. reported in I (2012) Civ.L.T. 169
(SC) & Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and
others Vrs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in AIRONLINE 2021
SC 38, an unreasoned order shall be called as non-speaking order.
The same cannot be sustainable under law.
A non-speaking order is held to be an order in violation of
principles of natural justice.
(v) In a case between Andhra Bank, Cuttack Vrs. Raghunath
Tripathy and others reported in 2017 (2) O.J.R. (889), when any
judgment suffers from non-application of mind, the said judgment
cannot be sustainable under law.
6. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the
above decisions of the Hon'ble Courts and Apex Court to the impugned
order vide Annexure-8 passed by the Collector & Revisional Authority,
Malkangiri (O.P. No.1), it is held that, the impugned order passed on
dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-8) by the Collector & Revisional Authority,
Malkangiri (O.P. No.1) in S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018 is not sustainable
under law.
For which, there is justification under law for making interference
with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioners.
7. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners.
The same must succeed.
8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed.
The impugned order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-8) passed in
S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018 by the Collector & Revisional Authority,
Malkangiri (O.P. No.1) is quashed.
The matter vide S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018 is remitted/remanded
back to the Collector & Revisional Authority, Malkangiri (O.P. No.1) to
decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard
to the parties thereof as expeditiously as possible within a period of three
months from the date of appearance of the petitioners.
Petitioners are directed to appear before the Revisional Authority
in S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018 on dated 04.08.2025 in order to receive the
directions of the said Revisional Authority (O.P. No.1) as to further
proceedings of that S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
(A.C. Behera),
Judge.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
22.07.2025//Utkalika Nayak//
Junior Stenographer
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA
NAYAK
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Jul-2025
17:03:19
