Pooranlal And Others vs Board Of Revenue And Others

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.5 filed an application before the Collector seeking permission to plant the trees on the land of the petitioner. The learned Collector rejected the said application. Aggrieved, the said respondent filed an appeal before the Revenue Commissioner which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a revision before the Board of Revenue which was allowed on 14.03.2016. The private respondent did not implead the present petitioner in the said revision. Therefore, the petitioner by filing a revision (Annexure P/7) brought this fact to the notice of the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by a cryptic order dated 05.12.2016 rejected the review application by holding that the necessary ingredients to attract Section 51 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 ('Code') are not satisfied.

Shri Yadav argued that there is no iota of discussion as to why non impleadment of necessary party in the revision cannot be a ground for revision. If an error is apparent on the face of the record is pointed out, it certainly attracts Section 51 (2)(b)(c) of the Code.

Shri Sharma, learned Deputy A.G. supported the impugned order.

I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

If the impugned order dated 05.12.2016 is examined in the juxtaposition to the stand taken in the revision petition, it will be clear like cloudless sky that the petitioner indeed taken the necessary factual averments and grounds in his review petition. The said grounds/factual backdrop make it clear that the petitioner with accuracy and precision pointed out that he was adversely affected and was a necessary party. His non impleadment is the reason to review the matter.

In the opinion of this Court, when such an averment was made, the minimum expectation from a judicial forum was to deal with the aforesaid factual aspect and examine whether the grounds for review are made out or not in the teeth of Section 51 of the Code. The Board of Revenue has not assigned any reason on this aspect and jumped to a conclusion that no case is made out to exercise review jurisdiction. In absence of any reason dealing with the specific grounds raised in the review petition, the said order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

The Apex Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 496 opined that the reasons are heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reasons, conclusion cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

In the said judgment, the Apex Court emphasized the need of assigning reasons in administrative, quasi judicial and judicial orders. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-

Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:

a. 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.

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 life blood 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 M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors on 8 September, 2010 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 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 Harward Law Review 731-737).

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 (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of 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".

Since the reasons are held to be heartbeat of conclusion, in absence of reasons, the impugned order dated 05.12.16 is liable to be axed. Resultantly, the said order is set aside. The matter is remitted back in the file of Board of Revenue with a further directions to decide it on merits in accordance with law.

The petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

C.C. as per rules.