Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.Manikumar, Shaji P.Chaly, JJ.
T.V. Rajeevan – Appellant
Versus
H.Krishna Bhat and ors. – Respondents
WA NO. 1343 OF 2021
Decided On : 01-11-2021
Constitution of India- Article 227 - Setting aside order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue – Challenged – Non speaking order - Right to reason- Expression `speaking order' - Action of the State or an instrumentality of the State in exercise of its executive power except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision.
Finding of the Court:
Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to he matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance - Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as why his application has been rejected - where a collective decision is taken by a body of people, a decision of a policy matter or a declaration of the manner of functioning or any other administrative matter may not necessarily require giving of reasons but where a decision making process which deals with the individual rights of a person and is governed by rules, regulations and statutes, then the power to decide is conferred by law and regulated by it. In such a situation, even a collective decision by a body cannot afford to be subjective and it has to record reasons.
Result : Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S. Manikumar, J.
Being aggrieved by the judgment in W. P. (C) No. 8201 of 2010 dated 23.07.2021, setting aside Ext. P14 order of the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 28.01.2010, and further directions, instant writ appeal is filed.
2. Short judgment impugned in this appeal are as hereunder:
“The eligibility of Sri.Koran stands unquestioned and the revision petition is allowed.”
3. According to me, this is not the way an order to be passed by the Revisional Authority. It is true that the facts are narrated previous to this part of order. There is no discussion and there is no application of mind. It is stated in the penultimate paragraph of the order that after hearing the Junior Superintendent at the Taluk Office, Hosdurg Taluk, it is found that the 2nd respondent Sri. Koran is eligible for the said assignment while the 1st respondent Sri. Krishna Bhat is having four acres of land of his own, and is not eligible for assignment. This is contradictory to Ext.P11. I don’t want to make any observation about the merit of the case. I am not satisfied the way in which the 1st respondent passed Ext.P14 order. I leave open all the contentions of the petitioner and the contesting respondents. The petitioner and the contesting respondents can raise all their submissions before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent will reconsider the matter in accordance to law. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit. The 1st respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, but only after hearing the petitioner and the affected parties. A speaking order is necessary.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. Ext.P14 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, and pass appropriate orders in accordance to law.
3. The above exercise should be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
3. Though Mr. T. Madhu, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram, respondent No. 1, has considered the rival submissions of the parties to the proceedings, and passed a detailed order, and further contended that writ court erred in interfering with the same on the grounds, inter alia, that it is non-speaking order, we are not inclined to accept the said contentions for the reason that, after narrating the pleadings made in the revision petition filed by Mr. T. V. Rajeevan, against the proceedings in D.Dis.1542/04/F dated 09.11.2006 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod, and the contentions, the Commissioner of Land Revenue has ordered thus:
The petitioner, Sri Rajeveen had purchased the said land from the second respondent, Sri.Koran on 1993. The first respondent, Srl.Krishna Bhat had filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod, as directed in judgment dated 07/02/05 and the subsequent order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, without considering the merits of the case. The Revenue Divisional Officer had directed the Tahsildar, Hosdurg Taluk to complete the LA proceedings only. The Sub Collector has stated in his report to the Commissioner of Land Revenue, Thiruvananthapuram, that the first respondent herein, Sri.Krishna Bhat is not eligible for the assignment and hence the assignment made in favour of Sri.Koran m
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
