RAMESH CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 26.6.2012, 15.12.2011, 12.11.2010 and 22.9.2010, passed by Board of Revenue, Additional Commissioner, Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, respectively. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 4.3.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.4542/2012 (sRajalal and another vs. Komal Singh and another). Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer as well as Additional Commissioner have failed to appreciate that the will is not transfer but it is devolution on the basis of testamentary succession and, therefore, the provision of Section 165(7-B) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 would not apply to the fact situation of the case. It is further submitted that the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner by a non-speaking order. The fact that the Board of Revenue has dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner by non- speaking order could not be disputed by the learned Panel Lawyer. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594, the Supreme Court 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. In Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others, (2010) 3 SCC 732, it has been held by the 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.

(2.) In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, the order dated 26.6.2012 passed by Board of Revenue cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly quashed. The Board of Revenue is directed to decide the revision preferred by the petitioner after affording opportunity of hearing to all the necessary parties in the light of the decision rendered by a Bench of this Court on 4.3.2014 in the case of Rajalal (supra), within a period of four months from today.

(3.) Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Certified copy as per rules.