ORDER

2 M.P.No.1322/2020 This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

“(a) Quash the order (Ann.P-6) passed by Board of Revenue (M.P.) Gwalior and affirmed the order dated 18-04-2012 (Ann.P-3) passed by the Tahsildar (Nazul) Jabalpur in Rev.Case No.1744/A-6/2011-12. (b) Costs of the proceedings.

(c) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper be awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2014 passed by SDO (Revenue), Division- Gohalpur, Jabalpur, petitioner had filed an appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur by order dated 24.10.2017 by holding that SDO has appreciated the entire things and he does not find any discrepancy in the same. The revision filed by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue has also been dismissed on the similar ground.

3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that it is well established principle of law that reasons are the heartbeats of the order and only from the reasons it can be deciphered as to whether the authority passing an order had applied its judicial mind or not? Neither the order passed by Additional Commissioner is a reasoned order nor the order passed by the Board of Revenue is a reasoned order. It is submitted that the petitioner had raised multiple grounds in the memo of appeal, but none of those were touched either by the Additional Commissioner or by the Board of Revenue.

4. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of 3 M.P.No.1322/2020 Kranti Associates Private Limited and another v. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496.

5. Per contra, the counsel for respondents tried to justify the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue by suggesting that once the authorities have come to a conclusion that order passed by SDO was correct, then assigning of any additional reason is not required.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. In the memo of appeal filed before the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur the petitioner had raised multiple objections. Whether those objections were borne out of the record or not, was to be decided by the Additional Commissioner.

The Additional Commissioner while exercising the qusi-judicial powers cannot say that he has considered the order passed by SDO and since the SDO has considered all the relevant aspects, therefore, he do not find any discrepancy in the same.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Central 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, 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 4 M.P.No.1322/2020 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 the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submiss