Janaki Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Others

A.C. Behera, J

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying for quashing the impugned order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Additional Sub-collector(Consolidation and Settlement), Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) in Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 under Section 22 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958.

Heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

The Additional Sub-collector(Consolidation and Settlement), Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) has passed the impugned order in dismissing the Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 U/s. 22 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 of the petitioner during currency of the settlement operation in respect of the case land in Muza-Sampur assigning the reasons as follows:-

“Examined all copies of documents and reports attached with the record. On perusal of the case record, it is ascertained that, relevant documents are not enclosed with the case record to justify her claim. Hence, the appeal Case No.598 of 2022 is dismissed due to non-submission of documents.”

The above impugned order passed by the Additional Sub-collector(Consolidation and Settlement), Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) does not reveal, which particular document was required for the decision of the Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022, to which, the appellant did not produce. For which, it is held that, the above impugned order passed by the Opposite Party No.2 is not a reasoned order. In other words, the same is an unreasoned/non-speaking order.

It is the settled propositions of law that, an unreasoned order like the above impugned order cannot be sustainable under law.

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions :-

(i) In a case between Atul Kuchhal vrs. Hem Ram and another : reported in 2015(1) CCC-640(Rajasthan), that, an order which does not reveal ground for coming to a conclusion, the same falls in the category of a non-speaking order.

(ii) In a case between U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vrs. Sheo Narain Kushwaha and others : reported in I(2012) Civ. L.T.-169 (S.C.) and Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others vrs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava : reported in AIRONLINE 2021 S.C.-38, an unreasoned order shall be called as non-speaking order. The same cannot be sustainable under law. A non-speaking order is held to be an order in violation of principles of natural justice.

(iii) In a case between Andhra Bank, Cuttack vrs. Raghunath Tripathy and others : reported in 2017(2) O.J.R.-889, when any judgment suffers from non-application of mind, the said judgment cannot be sustainable under law.

During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is eagerly interested for submitting all the required documents before the appellate authority, if the Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 under Section 22 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 shall be heard afresh remitting back the matter to the Additional Sub-collector(Consolidation and Settlement), Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) after quashing the impugned order.

As per the discussions and observations made above, when it is held that, the impugned order passed by the Additional Sub-collector(Consolidation and Settlement), Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) is an unreasoned order, then at this juncture, the same is not sustainable under law, for which, there is justification under law for making interference with the same through this writ petition filed by the petitioner.

Therefore, there is merit in this writ petition filed by the petitioner.

The same is to be allowed.

In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.

The impugned order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Additional Sub-collector(Consolidation and Settlement), Bhubaneswar(Opposite Party No.2) in Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 under Section 22 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act, 1958 is quashed.

The matter vide Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 is remitted back to the Settlement Officer at Jobra, Cuttack to decide the same afresh as per law after providing opportunity to the petitioner for filing of the documents in support of his case as well as giving her(petitioner) opportunity of hearing of the Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022.

The petitioner is directed to appear before the Settlement Officer at Jobra, Cuttack in Settlement Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 on dated 17.11.2025 and to the file certified copy of this judgment for the purpose of receiving the direction of the Settlement Officer, Jobra at Cuttack as to the further proceedings of the Appeal Case No.598 of 2022 on the basis of the observations made in this judgment.

As such, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of finally.

Registry is directed to communicate the copy of this judgment to the Settlement Officer, Jobra at Cuttack immediately.