A non-speaking order lacks reasoning and cannot be sustained in law; property mutations require consent from all co-sharers or a court decree.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the impugned order, which has been passed to drop her Mutation Case No.2308 of 2025 on dated 29.05.2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Tangi in the District of Khordha (O.P. No.4).

2. Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ASC for the State.

3. It appears from the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure-4) passed in Mutation Case No.2308 of 2025 by the Addl. Tahasildar, Tangi (O.P. No.4) that, the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure-4) is absolutely a blank and non-speaking order.

Because, only one word is in the said impugned order vide Annexure-4 i.e. “DROPPED”.

So, the above order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure-4) passed by O.P. No.4 in Mutation Case No.2308 of 2025 is purely a non-speaking as well as a blank order and the same is not backed/supported by any reason.

For which, it is held that, the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 (Annexure-4) has been passed by the O.P. No.4 without application of mind as well as without any reason. So, the impugned order vide Annexure-4 is held to be a non-speaking order.

4. The fate of a non-speaking order like the impugned order vide Annexure-4 (which is not backed/supported by any reason and without application of mind) 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.

When the impugned order vide Annexure-4 is a blank as well as a non-speaking order, then in view of the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions, the impugned order vide Annexure-4 cannot be sustainable under law.

5. The petitioner is a purchaser of part plot Nos.582 & 584 under Khata Nos.282 & 125 in Mouza Mulajhar under Tangi Tahasil in the district of Khordha from Brajabandhu Sahoo.

The R.o.Rs of Khata Nos.282 & 125 have been recorded jointly in the name of Brajabandhu Sahoo and Prabina Sahoo (wife of late Biharibandhu Sahoo).

As per the R.I. report, the petitioner is the purchaser from Brajabandhu Sahoo only and Prabina Sahoo (wife of late Biharibandhu Sahoo) has not given her consent in the sale deed of the petitioner to sell the same.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decision:-

In a case between Sudam Das Vrs. Krushna Mahakur reported in JBR Vol.XVIII (1982) Part-II Page 43 that, when one of the co-sharers sells his sha