AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the order dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure P/6) passed by Board of Revenue (Board).
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed Case No.371/Appeal/14-15 before learned Additional Commissioner, Bhopal
Division feeling aggrieved by order dated 29.01.2015 passed by learned Collector of Stamp whereby the said authority directed to pay Rs.8,59,800/- by
holding that gift deed is not properly stamped.
Shri Shobhitaditya, learned counsel for the petitioners by taking this Court to the findings of learned Additional Commissioner urged that the said
finding is based upon the relevant policy of 2013-14. The said authority has considered the location of land and the method of its assessment for the
purpose of determining the stamp duty. The Additional Commissioner has given a specific finding which is based on relevant clause of the policy. The
learned Board has interfered with this finding in a mechanical manner without considering the relevant clause of the policy and without assigning any
justifiable reason. He interfered with the order of Additional Commissioner, which is liable to be interfered with.
Shri Pawar, learned P.L. supported the order of the Board. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. The relevant portion of the
order of learned Additional Commissioner reads as under:-
 ‘‘ . 5 5
39
( - ) 1975 5 () ( )
।
। .. , - ,
, , । 2013-14
39 , , , , , , ,
16,500.00 । 2013-14
4 (1) 16,500.00
5 38
39
। 29.01.2015
। ।
।â€
This order is interfered with by learned Board by holding that:-
‘‘5/ ।
16/1 0.35 Â
   । Â
  ।   ।
3 । Â Â Â Â Â
, Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â
  ।  ।
,
। ,
।
6/ , , 24.11.2015
। 29.01.2015 ।â€
The order of learned Additional Commissioner makes it clear that he has considered location of land as per material on record. He has given findings
on the basis of Clause 4(i) of the said policy. The learned Board has not taken pains to analyze the aforesaid aspect. In other words, no reasons are
assigned in the impugned order of Board as to why the findings given by learned Additional Commissioner based on the said policy is faulty or illegal.
If a quasi judicial order is interfered with, the minimum expectation from the Appellate/Revisional Authority is that he will deal with all the relevant
points on the strength of which a litigant has succeeded. Putting it differently, if the order of Additional Commissioner is based on certain reasoning, it
was obligatory on the part of learned Board of Revenue to examine each of such reasoning, analyze the same and assign its independent reasons as to
why Board decided to interfere in the impugned order. The Board did not deal with the relevant clause of policy and location of land etc. It is simply
opined that since as per relevant documents and Khasra entry the land is situated in Village Kohefiza, no fault can be found in the order of Collector
Stamp.
The Apex Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others (2010) 9 SCC 49 6opined 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"".
As analyzed above, in absence of adequate reasons the learned Board of Revenue has committed an error in interfering with the order of learned
Additional Commissioner. Resultantly, the order dated 06.02.2019 is set aside. The matter is remitted back before the Board of Revenue to rehear the
parties and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
The petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
Â