The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK O.J.C. No.1378 2001 Kumudini Samantara & another Petitioners Mr. Satyanarayan Mohapatra, Advocate …. -versus- Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur & others …. Opposite Parties Ms. Suman Pattnaik, AGA (for O.Ps.1 & 2) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. 06. ORDER 22.08.2025 1. Assailing the order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the learned Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur, opposite party no.1 in Revision Case No.437 of 1992, whereby matter got remitted to the learned Consolidation Officer, Bhanjanagar for examination of the issue and physical possession keeping in view the contents of the Registered Partition Deed between the parties, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition with the following prayer(s):- “In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore most humbly prayed that, this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, issue rule Nisi calling upon the Opp.parties to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder be not allowed and upon showing insufficient cause / no cause make the said rule absolute, issue writ/writs direction/directions in the nature of; “Certiorari quashing the impugned order under Annexure- 4 and the proceedings in remand Revision Case No.437/92 pending before the Consolidation Officer, Bhanjanagar; And may pass such other order/orders as may be deemed just and proper; Page 1 of 8 And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall remain ever pray.” 2.
Legal Reasoning
urged that the order impugned is ex facie illegal, inasmuch as the same could not have been directed for consideration of registered partition deed among the parties by the Revisional Authority as the nature of land does not invite consideration of such fact. 4. Ms. Suman Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party nos.1 and 2-State opposing the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, with reference to Page 2 of 8 the counter affidavit, submitted that after affording an opportunity to the parties, the Revisional Authority has felt it expedient to remand the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Bhanjanagar for examination of the issue and physical possession and consideration of the registered partition deed. She would submit that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners in the event the Consolidation Officer, Bhanjanagar re- examines the issue as directed by the Revisional Authority. 5. Perusal of record reveals that the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur vide order dated 10.09.1998 passed the following:- “This is put up today. The Respondent No.4 is present. The petitioners are absent on call. It has been prayed to effect partition to the suit house and house site. The case is remanded to learned Consolidation Officer, Bhanjanagar for examination of the issue and physical possession, keeping in view the contents of the Registered partition deed between the parties. Pronounced in the open court today i.e. on 10th Sept. 1998.” 6. On the face of the impugned order, it is seen that no reason is forthcoming or ascribed by the Revisional Authority for remanding the matter to the Consolidation Officer, Bhanjanagar. By way of counter affidavit the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 sought to justify the order by adding reasons which, in the view of this Court is against what is enunciated in Mohinder Singh Gill Vrs. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851. 7. It is also revealed from the aforesaid order that the revision petitioners before the authority concerned were absent on the date of Page 3 of 8 hearing, though the presence of respondent no.4 therein (petitioner no.2 herein) is recorded by the said Authority. 8. “Reason”, being heartbeat of every decision making process, it has been restated in Nareshbhai Bhagubhai Vrs. Union of India, (2019) 15 SCC 1 as follows: “In Kranti Associates (P) Ltd.Vrs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 this Court held that: “12. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came up for consideration before this Court in several cases. Initially this Court recognised a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi-judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of this Court inA.K. KraipakVrs. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262. *** 47. (a) Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. Page 4 of 8 (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial 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 authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system. (j) 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 faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of 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-making Page 5 of 8 not only makes the Judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. [See David Shapiro in “Defence of Judicial Candor”, (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731- 37]. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz TorijaVrs. Spain, (1994) 19 EHRR 553, EHRR, at p. 562 para 29 and AnyaVrs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA), wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires,‘adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions’. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”.” 9. Conceding the position that giving reasons facilitates the detection of errors of law by the Court, this Court in Santosh Kumar Paikray Vrs. State of Odisha, 2016 (II) OLR 1131 (Ori) discussed importance of assignment of reason in the following lines: “8. The meaning of the expression ‘reason’ as stated by Franz Schubert: ‘reason is nothing but analysis of belief.’ In Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, ‘reason’ has been defined as: ‘a faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes truth from falsehood, good from evil, and which enables the possessor to deduce inferences from facts and from propositions.’ Page 6 of 8 In other words, reason means the faculty of rational thought rather than some abstract relationship between propositions and by this faculty, it is meant the capacity to make correct inferences from propositions, to size up facts for what they are and what they imply, and to identify the best means to some end, and, in general, to distinguish what we should believe from what we merely do believe. The importance of giving reason, it reveals a rational nexus between facts considered and conclusions reached. 9. In Union of India Vrs. Madal Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87 and Uma Charan Vrs. State of MP, AIR 1981 SC 1915, the Apex Court held reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached. The fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons when an order affects the right of a citizen or a person irrespective of the fact whether it is judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record and it is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice.” 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, so also the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order vide Annexure-4 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set-aside the order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the learned Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Page 7 of 8 Consolidation, Berhampur, opposite party no.1 in Revision Case No.437 of 1992. 11.
Arguments
Heard Sri Satyanarayan Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Suman Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for opposite party nos.1 and 2. Though a set of counsel entered appearance on behalf of the private opposite party nos.3 to 10, no one represented at the time of call nor have they filed any counter affidavit. On earlier occasions the matter stood adjourned in absence of counsel for said opposite parties. Since this matter is of the year 2001, this Court is not inclined to adjourn this matter any further. 3. Sri Satyanarayan Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the learned Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur, opposite party no.1 in Revision Case No.437 of 1992 is a cryptic, non-speaking and unintelligible order and, therefore, the same deserves to be set-aside and the matter deserves to be remanded for fresh consideration of the Revision Petition. 3.1. He further submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the subject land, the status of which is “Gramakantha Paramboke Land”. It is
Decision
In the result, the impugned order dated 10.09.1998 passed by the learned Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur, opposite party no.1 in Revision Case No.437 of 1992 is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur for fresh consideration of Revision Case No.437 of 1992 and pass a reasoned order after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. 12. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANORANJAN SAMAL Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 25-Aug-2025 12:32:13 Page 8 of 8