ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

''1. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to Set aside the impugned order dated 9.7.2024 passed by the SDO (Respondent No.3).

2. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus the respondent authorities to amend the land records by reducing the area of the original land that has already been sold, as per the factual situation, in the interest of justice.

3. Call for the entire records from the respondents for kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court.

4) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner has also filed a civil suit and an order of temporary injunction has been passed. It is submitted that the petitioner filed an application for correction of record and by application has been rejected. Although the contention to bypass the statutory remedy of appeal is that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to object to the re there is one more aspect of the matter sight of. The ordersheets of the Court of SDO (Revenue), Katni ha been placed on record, which 18.8.2023 an application for correction of record was filed by the petitioner. On 18.9.2023 a that Patwari submitted his report to the Tahsildar, which was considered by Tahsildar on 8.6.2024. The Tahsildar forwarded the report submitted by Patwari and by passed in Case No. accepted the report submitted by Patwari. For accepting the report submitted by Patwari through Katni did not give any reason reads as under:

^^vr% Ádj.k esa layXu rglhynkj dVuh uxj ds Áfrosnu ls lger gksrs gq;s fely cankscLr ds jdos ,oa orZeku vfHkys[k ds jdos esa dksbZ ifjorZu ugha gksus ls vkosnd }kjk ÁLrqr vfHkys[k lq/kkj laca/kh Ádj.k fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA i{kdkj lwfpr gksA ckn dk;Zokgh çdj.k nkf[ky nrj g¨A^^

3. The only question for consideration is as to whether any finding given by the revenue Court without a upheld or not?

4. Reasons are the backbone of the order and only from the reasons it can be deciphered draw a particular conclusion. Merely by mentioning that SDO has agreed with the report submitted by an order in accordance with law.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of Centrall Board of Trustees v. M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. decided in C.A. No.7240/2018 has held as under:

"14. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and without there being any discussion, discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why the findings impugned in the writ petition deserve to be upheld or reversed, while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for this Court to sustain such order of the Division Bench. The only expression used by the Division Bench in disposing of the writ petition is "on due consideration". It is not clear to us as to what was that due consideration which persuaded the Division Bench to dispose of the writ petition because we find that in the earlier paras only facts are set out.

15. Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain thee narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising rising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while disposing of the writ petition. Such order, in our view, has undoubtedly undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost. We c