The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK (An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950) W.P.(C) No.1377 of 2024 Maharaj Bairagi and Anr. …. Petitioner -versus- Collector and Revisional Authority, Malkangiri and others …. Opposite Parties Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Petitioner -
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Maheswar Mohanty, Advocate. For Opposite Parties - Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Standing Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing and Judgment :22.07.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioners praying for quashing the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by the Collector & Revisional Authority, Malkangiri (O.P. No.1) in S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018 on the ground that, the said impugned order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-8) is not a speaking order. Because, that order has been passed by the O.P. No.1 without assigning any reason. 2. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides. W.P.(C) No.1377 of 2024 Page 1 of 5 3. In order to bring the impugned order (Annexure-8) into picture, I thought it proper to place the same on the record, which is as follows:- “20.04.2023 The case is taken up to day. Both the Advocate for the petitioner as well as petitioner are present. Heard the learned advocate. The petitioner Maharaja Bairagi & Jagannath Bairagi both are S/o Atul Bairagi of village M.V-23 Po Mariwada. Both the petitioner are bonafide refugee from east Pakistan and settled in the village M.V-23 Po Mariwada and allotted with landed properties an extent of Ac. 4.50 cents vide Khata No 27 plot No 57/15 and 75/3 of Balakati Mouza. At that time of Settlement Operation the Settlement Authority exchanged that land with land of one Manoranjan Biswas and kept plot No 324 (Hc.1.470 in govt. Khata. Hence the petitioner has filed a SRP case for correction RoR. Perused the report of Tahasildar, Malkangiri as well as the P.W.C of ASO Jeypore wherein it has been reported that the petitioner is a settler of village M.V-23 and was allotted with Ac. 5.20 cents of land at Balakati Mouza vide Khata No 27 by DNK authorities. As per the Hal settlement, the petitioner issued two plots vide Khata No 114 and 273 respectively that the total extent of allotted land under Mouza Balkati is Hc. 2.279 and Mouza Mariwada is Hc. 0.475. During the year 1997 the Khatadar, sold 4 No's of plot from the same Khata measuring an extent of Hc. 1.421. The Tahasildar reported that the claimed Govt. land under Mouza Balakati vide Khata No 260 and plot No 324 to an extent of Hc.1.470 under AJA Khata is a barren land petitioner is not in possession over the same. In view of above fact supra, I am not satisfied with the 01 submission made by the petitioner in his revision petition as the claim of the petitioner is not genuine and got no merit. Hence I am inclined to order that the revision petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected, so it is rejected. Order pronounced in the open Court and given under my hand and seal of the Court on this day the 20th April. 2023. (To Dict.) Collector & Revisional Authority, Malkangiri Sd/- Collector & Revisional Authority, Malkangiri” The above order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-8) passed by O.P. No.1 in S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018 is a non-speaking order, as the same is not backed/supported by any reason. That apart, the O.P. No.1 has not given his own view in the impugned order, why he (O.P. No.1) interfered with the impugned order W.P.(C) No.1377 of 2024 Page 2 of 5 dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Tahasildar, Malkangiri in S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018. For which, it is held that, the impugned order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-8) has been passed by the O.P. No.1 without application of mind as well as without any reason. So, the impugned order vide Annexure-8 is a non-speaking order. 4. It is the settled propositions of law that, when any order is not backed/supported by any reason and the same is passed without application of mind terming that order as non-speaking order, the said order cannot be sustainable under law. Because as per law, that order is against the principles of natural justice. 5. On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:- In a case between Sebastiani Lakra and Ors. Vrs. (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd reported and another reported in 2018(4) CCC 50 (SC), every judicial order must contain reason. No judicial order is complete without reasons. (ii) In a case between State of Rajasthan Vrs. Rajendra Prasad Jain reported in (2008)15 SCC 711, reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless. In a case between Atul Kuchhal Vrs. Hem Ram and (iii) another reported in 2015(1) CCC 640 (Rajasthan), an order which does not reveal ground for coming to a conclusion, the same falls in the category of non-speaking order. In a case between U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vrs. (iv) Sheo Narain Kushwaha & Ors. reported in I (2012) Civ.L.T. 169 (SC) & Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vrs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava reported in AIRONLINE 2021 SC 38, an unreasoned order shall be called as non-speaking order. The same cannot be sustainable under law. A non-speaking order is held to be an order in violation of principles of natural justice. W.P.(C) No.1377 of 2024 Page 3 of 5 In a case between Andhra Bank, Cuttack Vrs. Raghunath (v) Tripathy and others reported in 2017 (2) O.J.R. (889), when any judgment suffers from non-application of mind, the said judgment cannot be sustainable under law. 6. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decisions of the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court to the impugned order vide Annexure-8 passed by the Collector & Revisional Authority, Malkangiri (O.P. No.1), it is held that, the impugned order passed on dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-8) by the Collector & Revisional Authority, Malkangiri (O.P. No.1) in S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018 is not sustainable under law. For which, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioners. 7.
Decision
Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The same must succeed. 8. In result, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure-8) passed in S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018 by the Collector & Revisional Authority, Malkangiri (O.P. No.1) is quashed. The matter vide S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018 is remitted/remanded back to the Collector & Revisional Authority, Malkangiri (O.P. No.1) to decide the same afresh as per law after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties thereof as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the petitioners. W.P.(C) No.1377 of 2024 Page 4 of 5 Petitioners are directed to appear before the Revisional Authority in S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018 on dated 04.08.2025 in order to receive the directions of the said Revisional Authority (O.P. No.1) as to further proceedings of that S.R.P. Case No.18 of 2018. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. 22.07.2025//Utkalika Nayak// Junior Stenographer (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Jul-2025 17:03:19 W.P.(C) No.1377 of 2024 Page 5 of 5