IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.53485/2017 (LA-RES) BETWEEN:
1. CHANNAMMA W/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 2. KUMAR S/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. NAGARAJ S/O LATE KALAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF DEVARAYAPATNA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK – 573 201.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE - ABSENT) AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CUM LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HASSAN SUB-DIVISION HASSAN – 573 201.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER YAGACHI PROJECT DIVISION BELUR – 576 111.
3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, HRP-II HASSAN – 573 201.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN – 573 201.
(BY SRI E.S. INDIRESH, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO REFER THE ABOVE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONERS FILED UNDER SECTION 28-A OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT FOR ADJUDICATION BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT, HASSAN VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R None for the petitioners.
Sri E.S. Indiresh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
Perused the records.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners inter alia seek a writ of certiorari for quashment of the impugned order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan. The petitioners also seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refer the aforesaid application of the petitioners filed under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for adjudication.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate fairly submitted that the Assistant Commissioner, while passing the impugned order dated 15.03.2016 has not assigned any valid or cogent reasons.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.N. MUKHERJEE vs. UNION OF INDIA, (1990) 4 SCC 594, has held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. While emphasizing the need for assigning reasons, it was held that giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness and hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law.
6. In SECRETARY AND CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL vs. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY AND OTHERS, (2010) 3 SCC 732, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making.
7. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the impugned order dated 15.03.2016 is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner to decide the application filed by the petitioners afresh by a speaking order within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ca