Kamlakant Prasad Sinha And Ors vs Manibala, widow Of late Sadashiv Prasad And Ors

Heard Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. N. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 08.06.2015 passed by learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division,

Dumka in Title Appeal No.38 of 1985-86.

Mr. Rajiv Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that this matter was earlier travelled up to this Court in W.P.(C) No.801

of 2003 and W.P.(C) No.1876 of 2008 whereby the learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka was directed to decide the appeal on

merit and in accordance with law after taking into account the exhibited public document. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel further submits that the

learned Commissioner though marked the public documents produced by the appellants as Ext. E1 to E23 and when these documents were marked as

exhibits on the same day without discussing the documents dismissed the appeal by a non-speaking order and upheld the order of the Settlement

Officer dated 10.11.1980 as passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.37 of 1971 as contained in Annexure-6.

This Court has perused the order dated 08.06.2015 and finds that there is no discussion of the documents marked as Ext. E1 to Ext. E23.

Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision rendered in “Central Board of Trustees v. M/s Indore Composite Pvt.

Ltd.â€​ reported in (2018) 8 SCC 443. Paragraph Nos.13 and 14 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:

“13. Indeed, in the absence of any application of judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy involved in the appeal and without there being

any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the issues and why the findings impugned in the writ petition deserve to be upheld

or reversed, while dealing with the arguments of the parties in the light of legal principles applicable to the case, it is difficult for this Court to sustain

such order of the Division Bench. The only expression used by the Division Bench in disposing of the appeal is “on due considerationâ€. It is not

clear to us as to what was that due consideration which persuade the Division Bench to dispose of the writ petition because we find that in the earlier

paragraphs only facts are set out.

Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the

bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the

issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support

of its conclusion. It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while disposing of the writ petition. Such order,

in our view has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has

lost. We can never countenance the manner in which such order was passed by the High Court which has compelled us to remand the matter to the

High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh on merits.â€​

On the other hand, Mr. S.N. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there is no illegality in the impugned

judgment. The Commissioner has marked the exhibits in view of the order of this Court.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the judgment dated 08.06.2015, this Court finds that although the

Commissioner has marked the documents as Ext.E1 to E25, but there is no discussion about those documents in the impugned judgment. It is in the

teeth of violation of earlier order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No.801 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No.1876 of 2008 (supra). The impugned judgment will

also not survive in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment passed in “Central Board of Trusteesâ€​ (supra).

Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 08.06.2015 is set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division,

Dumka to pass a fresh judgment after providing opportunity of hearing to the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties in accordance with

law.

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.4318 of 2015 stands allowed and disposed of.