Telangana High Court

Vanapalli Apparao vs Vanapalli Satyanarayana on 27 March, 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  APPEAL SUIT No.436 of 2024

JUDGMENT:

The Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the

docket order dated 16.12.2023 passed in O.S.No.145 of 2023 by

the Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents

herein are the defendants in the suit. For convenience, the parties

herein after referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief factual matrix of the case are that the plaintiff filed

suit vide O.S.No.145 of 2023 under Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 of

CPC read with Section 7 and 14 of Telangana Agency Rules, 1924

seeking partition of plaint A and B schedule properties into 3 equal

shares among the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and allot one

such share each to the plaintiff out of 1/3rd share. By the impugned

order, the trial Court dismissed the suit which reads as under:-

"Having material available on record, an extent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.17/13 situated at Kothapalli (Z), Charla (M). R.Sy.No.65 to an extent Ac.5.50 cents situated at Chintakunta Village, Charla Mandal was already acquired under Seethamma Dara Project. As per

LNA, J

the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 under Section 63 of the Act following reads that, No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to land acquisition in respect of which the Collector or the Authority is empowered by or under this Act, and no relief shall be granted by any Court in respect of any such manner. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition is dismissed. The connected IA's are stand closed."

4. Heard Sri Gunisetti Mohana Sai Baba, learned counsel for

the appellant/plaintiff, Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel

for respondent Nos.1 and 2; learned Government Pleader for

Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and it is endorsed

that respondent No.5 is not necessary party to the present appeal

suit.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the

O.S.No.145 of 2023 was filed for partition of plaint A and B

schedule property. In fact, in the schedule itself, it is mentioned

that Plaint A-Schedule property was acquired by Agent to

Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. However, Plaint B-

Schedule property contains two items. Item No.1 relates to an

extent of land admeasuring Ac.2.0960 cents, situated at

R.S.No.17/13 at Kothapalli Z village, Charla Mandal and Item

LNA, J

No.2 relates to an extent of land admeasuring Ac.5.50 cents,

situated at R.S.No.65 at Chintakunta, Charla Mandal. He further

submitted that even if the observation of the trial Court is taken

into consideration, Item No.1 of plaint B-Schedule property has not

been acquired and it is still open for partition.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that the

learned Agent to Government committed grave error in passing the

impugned order, without appreciating the facts of the case in a

proper perspective and prayed to set aside the same.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that in

the impugned order, it is mentioned that plaintiff was present and

his counsel was absent. Thus, the learned Agent to Government by

a cryptic order without giving any opportunity of hearing to the

plaintiff dismissed the suit. Therefore, it is a fit case for remand to

the Agent to Government for fresh adjudication on merits.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants did not

oppose the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff for

remand of the matter seriously.

LNA, J

9. A perusal of the record discloses that impugned Order was

passed on the first date of hearing without examining the matter in

detail and by way of cryptic order and no details of acquisition of

the said lands and the compensation amount paid in respect of

acquired lands are also not recorded. Further, the learned Agent to

Government has not appreciated the facts of the case while passing

the impugned order. The learned Agent to Government, is expected

to consider the averments made in the counter, appreciate the same

on merits and thereafter, pass a reasoned order.

10. In a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court and

various High Courts held that any order passed by a Court or a

quasi-judicial authority or a Tribunal shall record reasons for its

conclusions.

11. In Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan1, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering various judgments,

formulated certain principles which are set out below:-

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

(2010) 9 SCC 496

LNA, J

(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

LNA, J

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 Harvard 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 Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553 at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001] EWCA Civ 405, wherein the court referred to article 6 of European Convention of Human

LNA, J

Rights which requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decision.'

(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'."

12. Following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Kranti Associates (one cited supra), the High Court of

Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. State of

Gujarat and others 2 observed as under:-

"At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non communication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice. This court is bound by the said judgments hereinafter referred to. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases. Initially, the Supreme Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi- judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. K. Kralpak v.

2022 SCC Online Guj 2530

LNA, J

Union of India (1970) 1 SCR 45. The honourable Supreme Court vide judgments in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector Raigad (2012) 4 SCC 407, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (2010) 13 SCC 336; Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 and Abdul Ghaffar v. State of Bihar (2008) 3 SCC 258, has expanded the horizon of natural justice and reasons have been treated part of the natural justice. It has gone to the extent in holding that reasons are heart and soul of the order."

13. Thus, the position of law that emerges from the decision

mentioned above is that assignment of reasons is imperative in

nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the

reason which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons

must be the result of independent appreciation of evidence adduced

and the documents produced in the case.

14. In the instant case, the learned Government to Agent has

evidently not adverted to the merits of the case and contentions set

out in the affidavits, filed in support of the aforesaid applications

and dismissed the suit by way of a cryptic judgment.

LNA, J

15. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in