JUDGMENT R. K. PATRA, J. — Both the writ petitions arise out a common order by which two cases have been disposed of. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 5.7.1985 (Annexure-6) passed by the Revenue Officer, Niali in O.L.R. Case Nos. 10 and 11 of 1976 declaring the petitioners as raiyat under Section 4 (5) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act, in respect of the disputed properties, the opposite parties 5 to 17 filed O.L.R. Appeal Nos. 6 and 7 of 1985 before the Sub-divisional Officer, Cuttack who by order dated 29.10.1988 (Annexure-7) reversed the order of the Revenue Officer. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order of the Sub-divisional Officer before the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack in O.L.R. Revision No. 24 of 1988. The revi¬sional authority by order dated 19.12.1992 (Annexure-8) dismissed the revision. Hence the writ petitions. 3. On perusal of the impugned order of the Additional District Magistrate at Annexure-8, we find that he has confirmed the order of the Sub-divisional Officer without independently assessing the evidence on record. The order is a cryptic one. Law is new well settled that a quasi-judicial authority is required to record the reasons in support of the decision arrived at. Absence of reasons in the order vitiates the ultimate decision. As the impugned order suffers from this vice, we set aside the order dated 19.12.1992 (Annexure-8) of the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack passed in O.L.R. Revision No. 24 of 1988 and remit the matter to him for fresh disposal, according to law. Writ petitions are accordingly allowed. PRADIP MOHANTY, J. I agree. Petition allowed.