The necessity of providing clear reasoning in decision-making is critical for judicial integrity and transparency, ensuring just outcomes in administrative and quasi-judicial decisions.

ORDER :

MURAHARI SRI RAMAN, J.

1. Assailing the order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the learned Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur, opposite party no.1 in Revision Case No.437 of 1992, whereby matter got remitted to the learned Consolidation Officer, Bhanjanagar for examination of the issue and physical possession keeping in view the contents of the Registered Partition Deed between the parties, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer(s):-

“In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore most humbly prayed that, this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, issue rule Nisi calling upon the Opp.parties to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder be not allowed and upon showing insufficient cause / no cause make the said rule absolute, issue writ/writs direction/directions in the nature of;

“Certiorari quashing the impugned order under Annexure- 4 and the proceedings in remand Revision Case No.437/92 pending before the Consolidation Officer, Bhanjanagar;

And may pass such other order/orders as may be deemed just and proper;

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall remain ever pray.”

2. Heard Sri Satyanarayan Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Suman Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party nos.1 and 2. Though a set of counsel entered appearance on behalf of the private opposite party nos.3 to 10, no one represented at the time of call nor have they filed any counter affidavit. On earlier occasions the matter stood adjourned in absence of counsel for said opposite parties. Since this matter is of the year 2001, this Court is not inclined to adjourn this matter any further.

3. Sri Satyanarayan Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the learned Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur, opposite party no.1 in Revision Case No.437 of 1992 is a cryptic, non-speaking and unintelligible order and, therefore, the same deserves to be set-aside and the matter deserves to be remanded for fresh consideration of the Revision Petition.

3.1. He further submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the subject land, the status of which is “Gramakantha Paramboke Land”. It is urged that the order impugned is ex facie illegal, inasmuch as the same could not have been directed for consideration of registered partition deed among the parties by the Revisional Authority as the nature of land does not invite consideration of such fact.

4. Ms. Suman Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party nos.1 and 2-State opposing the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, with reference to the counter affidavit, submitted that after affording an opportunity to the parties, the Revisional Authority has felt it expedient to remand the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Bhanjanagar for examination of the issue and physical possession and consideration of the registered partition deed. She would submit that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners in the event the Consolidation Officer, Bhanjanagar re-examines the issue as directed by the Revisional Authority.

5. Perusal of record reveals that the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur vide order dated 10.09.1998 passed the following:-

“This is put up today.

The Respondent No.4 is present. The petitioners are absent on call. It has been prayed to e