Smt. Indiri Devi (Deceased) Through Her Lrs. Dev Raj Sharma & Others vs Parkash Singh & Others

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of this petition, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for the following relief:-

“(i) Annexure P-8, order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the Financial Commissioner (Appeals)-respondent No.6 in Revision Petition No.86/97, may kindly be set aside, quashed and consequently Annexure P-2, application for resumption of land may kindly be dismissed.”

The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), Himachal Pradesh, in Revision Petition No.86/97, titled as Sh. Prakash Singh Versus Shri Prem Singh & others, in terms whereof, while accepting the revision petition filed by the respondents herein, learned Financial Commissioner set aside the order passed by the Revisional Authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has, inter alia, argued that the order impugned is no order in the eyes of law, for the reason that there is no reasoning given in the order as to what weighed with learned Financial Commissioner so as to persuade the Authority to set aside the order. He submitted that it is settled law that an order has to be a reasoned one, from which it can be deciphered as to what weighed with the Authority to arrive at the conclusion which was so arrived at in the order. In the present case, he submitted that except for the last one para of the order the rest of the order is devoted to the facts and contentions of the parties and what was contained in the order past by the Authorities. Learned Financial Commissioner has only given the following reasoning to set aside the order:-

“It is seen from the above that all the points on which the learned Divisional Commissioner has accepted the appeal as meritting further enquiry/correction were deal with very thoroughly by the District Collector. In his order he had given clear findings on the same. In view of this the revision petition is accepted and the order of the learned Divisional Commissioner dated 21.11.1996, is set aside.”

As per learned counsel, perusal thereof demonstrates that there is no discussion of the contentions of the parties, no independent reasoning assigned by learned Financial Commissioner, as to why it was not concurring with the order passed by learned Divisional Commissioner. Accordingly, he prayed that the order is per se bad being a non-speaking order, the petition be allowed, as prayed for.

On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the order is a well reasoned order and perusal thereof clearly demonstrates, as to what weighed with learned Financial Commissioner while setting aside the order passed by the Authority concerned. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that otherwise also, the petitioners have no locus to file and maintain this petition, for the reason that the first order past by the Land Reforms Officer was not assailed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners before District Collector, Hamirpur, H.P. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is no merit in the petition, the same deserves to be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the orders passed, including the impugned order.

A perusal of the order passed by learned Financial Commissioner demonstrates that while deciding the revision petition, the Authority took note of the facts of the case and also the contentions of the parties. Thereafter, in the penultimate para it referred to the findings returned by the Appellate Authority. After taking note of all above, learned Financial Commissioner did not dwell on the grounds of revision and went on to set aside the order passed by Divisional Commissioner by passing a non-speaking order by observing that from the above, all the points on which Divisional Commissioner accepted the appeal as meritting further enquiry/correction were dealt with very thoroughly by District Collector, who in his order had given clear findings.

It is settled law that reasoning is the soul of an order. Every order, which has civil consequences is concerned, has to contain reasons, demonstrating therein how the final conclusion arrived at by the Authority has been so arrived at. In other words, the Authority/Quassi Judicial Authority has to take into consideration the respective contentions of the parties and then it has to dwell on the respective contentions vis-a-vis the order under challenge and it has to justify its decision by inking the reasons in the order on the basis of which final conclusion is arrived at by the Authority. In the impugned order all these is lacking. The same does not contains any reason as to what weighed with the Authority so as to set aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. No reasoning has been given in the order, as to why the findings returned by the Divisional Commissioner were bad. There is no discussion on the respective contentions of the parties, justifying the setting aside the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner.

Therefore, this Court concurs with the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order is bad being a non-speaking order.

As far as the objection raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners qua maintainability of the petition is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that said objection is without any merit. A perusal of the record demonstrates that the appeal before Divisional Commissioner was filed by Prem Singh, Hari Ram, Duni Chand, Gian Chand and Basant Lal. The petitioners are the successor-in-interest of Duni Chand. The appellants who preferred the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner were successful. Feeling aggrieved, the private respondents filed a revision petition against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. A perusal of the record demonstrates that therein the private respondent himself impleaded the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and thereafter, his legal heirs including the petitioners as party respondent, obviously for the reason that Duni Chand was one of the appellant. Nothing prevented the private respondent from raising an objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal before the Divisional Commissioner on behalf of Duni Chand, on the ground that the same was not maintainable. This was not done. That being the case, the respondents cannot be allowed to become wiser now, more so in the light of the fact that the present petitioners in fact have got the locus to assail the order in issue from the fact that he was impleaded as a party respondent before learned Financial Commissioner by the respondents herein himself.

Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this petition allowed. Order dated 10.10.2006 (Annexure P-8), is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to learned Financial Commissioner (Appeals), with the direction that post remand the matter be decided afresh by adhering to the principles of natural justice and endeavour be made by the Authority concerned to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 30.09.2025.

The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of accordingly.