The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE I,AXMI NARAYANA AI,ISHETTY APPEAL SUIT No.436 of 2024 JUDGMENT: The Appeal Suit is filed by the appellant aggneved by tlie docket order datcd 16.12.2023 passed in O.S.No. 145 ol'2023 by the Court of the Agent to Govemment, Bhadradri Kothagudem.

2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff and the respondents herein are the defendants in the suit. For convenierce, the parties herein after referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The brief lactual matrix of the case are that tle ltlaintiff filed suit vide O.S.No.l45 of 2023 under Section 26 Ordcrr VII Rule I of CPC read witli Section 7 and 14 of Telangana Agercy Rules, 1924 seeking partition of plaint A and B schedule properlies into 3 equal shares among the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and allot one such share each to the plaintitlout of 1/3'd share. By the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the suit which reads as under:- "Har"ing material available on record, an r:xtent of Ac.3.00 cents in Sy.No.l7l13 situated at Kothapalli (Z), Charla (M). R.Sy.No.65 to an extent Ac.5 50 conts situated at Chintakunta Village, Charla Marrdal u.as alreadv acquired under Seethamma Dara Proje i:t. As per I 2 LNA, J A.5.No.436 ol 2021 the Land Acquisition Act,2013 under Section 63 of the Act following reads that, No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any dispute relating to land acquisition in respect of which the Collector or the Authority is empowered by or under this -Act, and no relief shall be granted by any Court in respect of any such manner. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition is dismissed. The connected IA's are stand closed."

4. Heard Sri Gunisetti Mohana Sai Baba, learned counsel for the appellantiptaintiff, Sri K.Jagadishwar Reddy, leamed counsel lor respondent Nos.l and 2; learned Government Pleader fbr Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and it is endorsed that respondent No.5 is not necessary party to the present appeal su1t.

5. Leamed counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the O.S.No.l45 of 2023 was filed for partition of ptaint A and B schedule property. In fact, in the schedule itself, it is mentioned that Plaint A-Schedule property was acquired by Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. However, Ptaint B- Schedule property contains two items. Item No. I relates to an extent of land admeasuring Ac.2.0960 cents, situated at R.S.No.l7ll3 at Kothapatli Z village, Charla Mandal and ltem '.u r*si€ll|.reliry . .iiig;',i,r,;3:r ,/ 3 LNA, J l.S.Yo..l-16 of 2021 No.2 relates to an extent of land admeasuring .\c.5.50 cents, situated at R,S.No.65 at Chintakunta, Charla Mancal. Hc further submitted that even if the observation of the triat llourt is taken into consideration, Item No. I of ptaint B-Schedule pr1)pertv has not been acquired and it is still open for parlition.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff fu(her subrnirtecl that the leamed Agent to Government committed grave error in passing the impugned ordcr, without appreciating the facts o1- the case in a proper perspective and prayed to set aside the same.

7. Learned counsel fbr the plaintiff furthcr sut,rnitted that in the impugned order, it is mentioned that plaintiff u,as prcsent and his counsel was absent. Thus, the leamed Agent to (iovernment by a cryptic order without giving any oppofiunity of hearing to the plaintiff dismissed the suit. Therefore, it is a fit case for remand to the Agent to Government for fiesh adjudication on nter.its.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents/defen,lants did not oppose the contention of the leamed counsel for ttLc plaintiff for remand of the matter seriously. I 4 LNA, J 4.5.No.436 of 2024

9. A perusal of the record discloses that impugned Order was passed on the first date of hearing without examining the matter in detail and by way of cryptic order and no details of acquisition of the said lands and the compensation amount paid in respect of acquired lands are also not recorded. Further, the leamed Agent to Govemment has not appreciated the facts of the case while passing the impugned order. The learned Agent to Govemment, is expected to consider the averments made in the counter, appreciate the same on merits and thereafter, pass a reasoned order.

10. In a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts hetd that any order passed by a Court or a quasi-judicial authority or a Tribunal shall record reasons for its conclusions I l. ln Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khant, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering various judgments, formulated certain principles which are set out below:- "(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicialty. ) ) I (2010) 9 scc 496 -----.^r{*:gmq:c .a}r' .1:''1.'.,/ ._ - 4. ..: ,,. ./ ! I I l 5 LNA, J 1.5.No.136 of 2024 (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record retsons in support of its conclusions. (c) lnsistence on recording of reasons is nreant to serve the wider pnnciple oljustice that justice rnust rlot only be done it must also appear to be done aS u t:ll. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a vaird restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative powcr. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grou nds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispe:rsiLblo a componellt of a decision rnaking proccss as ol)serving principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi .judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process ofjudicial rc:vicw by superior courts. (h) The ongoing .iudicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional go\ entance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood ofjudicial decision- making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authoritLes who deliver them. All these decisions serve ouo (:onrmon purpose which is to demonstrate by reason :hat the relevant factors have been objectively consider,:d. This 6 .r='-- LNA, J A.S.No.4j6 of 2024 is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. 0) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is laithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support ol decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber- stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision- making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-rnaking not only makes the judges and decision rnakers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny (See David Shapiro in Defence ofJudicial Candor (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-737); (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virhrally a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553 at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001] EWCA Civ 405, wherein the court referred to article 6 of European Convention of Human \ -+-.--=+.;mFqt I I I I 1 LNA. J ,1.5.No.436 of 2024 Rights rvhich requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decision.' (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgrnents plav a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, lor developmeut of law, requirernent of giving reasons for the decision is of the essenc: and is virtually a part of 'due process'."

12. Following the principles laid down by the Hcn'ble Supreme Courl in Kranti Associates (one cited supra), the Fligh Court of Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Llorks Vs. State of Gujarat antl othersz observed as u nder:- "At the outset, we notice that it is settlr:d legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul oF the order and non comrnunication of sarne itself amLlunts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, res rltrng in miscarriage ofjustice. This court is bound by thc said judgments hereinafter referred to. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in suppcrt of its decision came for consideration belore thc liuP1gll1s Court in several cases. Initially, the Suprcnre Court recognized a sort of demarcation between adntir istratr ve orders and quasi- judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blur.rerl and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the jffient of the Supreme Court in A. K. Kralpak v. ' 2022 SCC Online Guj 2530 8 LNA, J AS.No.436 of 2021 Union of India (1970) I SCR 45. The honourable Supreme Court vide judgments in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector Raigad (2012) 4 SCC 407, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modem Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (2010) 13 SCC 336; Kranti Associates Private Lirnited v. Masood Ahrned Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 and Abdul Ghaffar v. State of Bihar (2008) 3 SCC 258, has expanded the horizon ofnatural justice and reasons have been treated part of the natural justice. It has gone to the extent in holding that reasons are heart and soul of the order."

13. Thus, the position of law that emerges from the decision mentioned above is that assignment of reasons is imperative in nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the reason which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons must be the result of independent appreciation of evidence adduced and the documents produced in the case

14. In the instant case, the leamed Govemment to Agent has evidently not adverted to the merits of the case and contentions set out in the affrdavits, filed in support of the aforesaid applications and dismissed the suit by way of a cryptic judgment. .----r$,ffiry/ ./ -*;: I To \P 9 I,NA, J ,.5..Yo.$6 of 2024

15. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble SuJrreme Court in Kranti Associalcs (first cited supra) and the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat. in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing J/orts (second cited supra), it is to be held that the reasons, whiclr are the heart and soul of the order, are obviously missing in the inrpugned order. Therefore, the irnpugned order dated 16.12.2023 is u rsustainable in the eye of lau, and accordingly, the same is set aside

16. In the result, Appeal Suit is disposed of anrl the rnatter is remitted back to the Agent to Govemmcnr, Ilhadradri Kothagudem, rvith a direction to adjudicate thc suit i.e., O.S.No.l4-5 of 2023 afresh by taking into corsicleration the pleadings, material on record by duly affording .rp;rorlunity of hearing both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance rvith larv, duly assigning the reasons there for. l'hcre shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K. SREE RAMA MURTHY t)EPUTY REGISTRAR \ ', SECTION OFFICER V Hyderabad

1. The Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. 2. Two GCs to GP for Revenue, High Court for the 5itate of Telangana at 3. One CC to SRl. GUNISETTI MOHANA SAt BABA, Advocate TOPUCI 4. One CC to SRl. K. JAGADISHWAR REDDY, Advocatr-. TOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DAfED:2710312025 ORDER AS.No.436 of 2024 .>\ )1'( 02 $P ;\ '9/ '\ .\U.,,',';C1 ,to i DISPOSIN(i OF THIi APP]]AL SIJIT WTII]OI IT COS'fS OL