Order

19/03/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Administration) and Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer, whereby, the application preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC by the respondent No.4 has been allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has preferred an appeal under Rule 23(1) of the Rajasthan Colonization (Allotment and Sale of Government Land in the Indira Gandhi Canal Colony Area) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1975’) before the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Administration) and Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer against the respondent No.3. He further submits that during pendency of the appeal, an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC was filed by the respondent No.4, who was not a party in the appeal, and the same has been allowed by the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Administration) and Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer vide order dated 02.08.2024.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no reason has been assigned by the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Administration) and Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer while allowing the application preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by the respondent No.4. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition may be allowed and the order dated 02.08.2024 may be quashed and set aside.

5. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Administration) and Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer as well as the other relevant records of the case.

6. The startling facts in the present writ petition are that the allotment order made in favour of the respondent No.3 was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing an appeal under Rule 23 (1) of the Rules of 1975 before the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Administration) and Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer. During pendency of the appeal, an application was filed by the respondent No.4 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the same has been entertained and allowed by the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Administration) and Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer vide order dated 02.08.2024.

7. It will be appropriate to reproduce the order dated

02.08.2024 hereunder:-

“अधि(cid:3)व्ሹा जे.पी. गग(cid:12) ने एक ्ቚा. प्ቔ अज(cid:18)्ቇ सुनवाई का पेश करने पर प्ቔावली आज पेशी में ली गई। अपीलांट के अधि(cid:3)व्ሹा सहमत है। अतः

्ቚा. प्ቔ ्ቭीकार धिकया जाता है।

्ቚाቕኍ’ गनी खां पु्ቔ धि)लबर खां मुसलमान सा. मीरबाला की ओर से इसी वकील गग(cid:12) ने एक ्ቚा. प्ቔ अ्ቌग(cid:12)त आ)ेश 7 धिनयम 11 सपधि.त (cid:3)ारा 151 सीपीसी. का पेश धिकया। अपीलांट के अधि(cid:3)व्ሹा को )ी जाकर बहस सुनी गई।

धिव्ቛान अधि(cid:3)व्ሹाओं की बहस पर गंभीरतापूव(cid:12)क मनन धिकया गया। ्ቚ्ቜुत ्ቚाቕኍ(cid:12)न ा - प्ቔ आ)ेश 7 धिनयम 11 सपधि.त (cid:3)ारा 151 सीपीसी ्ቭीकार धिकया जाकर ्ቚ्ቜुत अपील व आ)ेश धि)नांक 11.07.2024 खारिरज ”

धिकया जाता है। प्ቔावली फै सलशुमार होकर )्቏र से कम हो।

8. A bare perusal of the order dated 02.08.2024 shows that nothing has been considered by the Additional Commissioner Colonization (Administration) and Revenue Appellate Authority, Jaisalmer while deciding the application preferred under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC, much less, the order is totally non-speaking and unreasoned. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order dated 02.08.2024 is absolutely not sustainable in the eyes of law.

9. This Court is at pains to note that the quasi-judicial authorities are passing the orders very casually and in the most cryptic manner. No reasons are assigned in the order, which is totally against the spirit of law. The passing of such orders is not acceptable in law as the same would shake the confidence of people in the judicial and quasi-judicial authorities. The passing of the order mentioned abo