IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6017 of 2011 For Approval and Signature:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
========================================================= RABARI BALDEVBHAI BALABHAI THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER - Petitioner(s) Versus MAMLATDAR & 2 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI, MR MB GANDHI for Petitioner MS NISHA M THAKORE, ASSTT.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents =========================================================
CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date : 24/01/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Ms.Nisha M.Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and decided today.
2. The challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 24.02.2011, passed by the Collector, whereby the revision application of the petitioner has been rejected.
3. The brief facts of the case may be noticed. The petitioner is the owner of land bearing Survey No.1724 admeasuring 2934 square metres, situated at Village Bavla, Taluka: Bavla, District: Ahmedabad. An application was made by the petitioner for conversion of the said land, from agricultural land to nonagricultural land, on 18.02.1997, to the District Collector, Ahmedabad. The said application came to be dismissed on the ground that it had remained as uncultivated waste land for the period with effect from 198182 to 199495. Proceedings for breach of conditions were initiated against the petitioner vide Case No.5/1998, which were withdrawn by order dated 07.09.1999 of the Mamlatdar, with a condition that the petitioner should apply for non agricultural use of the land within six months. An application for conversion of the land for nonagricultural use was made by the petitioner within six months, but it was not decided within the stipulated period of time. Once again, a case for breach of condition was registered against the petitioner, being Case No.1/1999. The petitioner made a representation to the Collector on 25.05.2000, which was rejected. The order passed on the representation was challenged by the petitioner by filing a petition being Special Civil Application No.5493 of 2000, which came to be allowed. At that point of time, an application for review was pending. An entry, being Entry No.11806 was effected whereby the name of the Government was added. An objection was raised by the petitioner against said entry made in favour of the Government in record of rights and the said entry was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector. It is the case of the petitioner that in the meanwhile, another entry, being Entry No.1724 was made in Village Form No.7/12 in favour of the Government. The petitioner initiated proceedings vide RTS Proceeding No.268/2007, unsuccessfully. As mutation in favour of the Government had been made, the petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Dholka, being RTS Appeal No.48/2008, which came to be dismissed by order dated 17.02.2009. Being aggrieved by the abovementioned order of the Deputy Collector, the petitioner preferred a revision under Rule 108(6) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Rules, being RTS Revision No.180/2009, before the Collector, taking various contentions in support of the prayer to set aside the said entry. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said revision application has been dismissed by the Collector by passing a oneline, cryptic order dated 24.02.2011. Hence the petition.
4. Mr.Chinmay M.Gandhi, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the order of the Collector is a nonspeaking one, and is devoid of any reasons. That the contentions raised by the petitioner are not reflected in the said order, that cannot be termed as a legal order, therefore, the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Ms.Nisha M.Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Collector, therefore, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Special Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, and he should have availed of the said remedy instead of approaching this Court by filing the present petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, it would be relevant to advert to the impugned order. A perusal thereof makes it clear that not only is the order a cryptic and nonspeaking one, it contains not even an apology of a reason, leave alone any reason, in support of the abrupt and blunt conclusion arrived at. It merely states that the revision application is dismissed, and the order dated 17.02.2009 of the Deputy Collector is confirmed.
7. It would be appropriate, at this stage, to refer to the settled law in this regard.
8. In Union of India & Ors. v. Jai Prakash Singh & Anr. AIR 2007 SC 1363, the Supreme Court has held as below:
“7. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment no sustainable.”
9. In Daya Ram v. Raghunath & Ors. 2007(8) SCALE 552, it has been stated that: “8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.
9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All ER 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasijudicial performance.”
10. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gulab Nabi & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 743, the Supreme Court has held as below:
“7. Nonapplication of mind is clear from the fact that since the State was not a party, the question of hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the State does not arise. The order therefore has been passed without any application of mind. The order is also nonreasoned.”
11. In Ram Phal v. State of Haryana & Others AIR 2009 SC (Supp.) 1410, the Supreme Court has held as below:
“7. Having gone through the impugned order, in our considered view, we cannot sustain the same for the reasons, that, in the writ petition filed, the appellant had raised several issues in support of the relief sought in the writ petition. The High Court without examining any one of the issues raised and canvassed, by cryptic and non reasoned order, has dismissed the writ petition. In our view, this is not the way a petition filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India is to be disposed of. The duty to give reasons for coming to a decision is of decisive importance which cannot be lawfully disregarded. The giving of the satisfactory reasons is required by the ordinary man's sense of justice and also a healthy discipline for all those who exercise power over others...”.
12. In Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors. 2003(11) SCC 510, the Supreme Court has held that “reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless”.
13. Examining the impugned order in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the abovementioned judgments, it is clear that there has been no application of mind, whatsoever, by the Collector, while passing the same. The impugned order contains no reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at, that is, rejection of the revision application. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the revision application have not even been touched upon, leave alone considered, while passing the said order.
14. While deciding the revision application, the Collector is acting as a quasijudicial authority and, as such, he is bound to give reasons in support of his decision. The party against whom the order has been passed, in this case the petitioner, would otherwise remain ignorant of the reasons for dismissal of the revision application. The appellate authority would also be clueless regarding the basis of the decision taken. An order as cryptic and as unreasoned as the impugned orderwhich can be termed as a one line ordernot only defeats the ends of justice but also offends the inherent sense of justice of every justiceoriented person. Most significantly, it reveals a careless and arbitrary attitude and total nonapplication of mind. The impugned order is, therefore, unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside.
15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, there is no need to relegate the petitioner to avail of alternative remedy.
16. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.02.2011 passed by the Deputy Collector, Ahmedabad, is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Collector, Ahmedabad, for fresh decision on merits, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Needless to say, the Collector shall render the decision in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned order. The said exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.)
(sunil)