MATHUR, M.—This reference has been made by District Collector, Jodhpur under Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short to be referred as 'the Act') by order dated 5.8.2002. 2. Brief facts of the case are that non-petitioners filed a suit No. 99/1986 in the Court of Assistant Collector (Headquarter), Jodhpur claim-ing that the disputed land situated at Village Jodhpur bearing old khasra No. 751 presently new khasra numbers are 849/751 area 6 bigha 4 biswa, khasra No.849/1/751 area 1 bigha 18 biswa, total 8 bigha 2 biswa has continuously been cultivated by them, but it not so recorded in the revenue records. Hence, on the basis of long cultivatory possession, it may be decal-red that they are the khatedars of disputed land. The Assistant Collector (Headquarter), Jodhpur decreed the suit on 24.9.1998 and ordered to record the above mentioned 8 bigha 2 biswa of disputed land in favour of non-petitioners as khatedar tenant. Considering this judgment and decree dated 24.9.1998 in favour of non-petitioners as illegal and against the provisions of law, District Collector Jodhpur has made this reference to the Board of Revenue after affording an opportunity of hearing to the non-petitioners. 3. I have heard the arguments of learned Dy. Govt. Advocate and learned counsel for the non-petitioners and perused the record. 4. In support of reference, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate submitted that Assistant Collector (Headquarter), Jodhpur has passed the judgment and decree without looking into the facts of the written statement. The non-petitioners have not submitted any documentary evidence of ancestral cultivatory possession before trial Court. The trial Court has passed the judgment only on the basis of oral evidence. The above said judgment and decree is absolutely against the record and in violation of the provisions of law, hence deserves to be set aside. In view of above, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate requested that the reference be accepted. 5. Learned counsels for the non-petitioners have submitted that non-petitioners are continuously cultivating on the disputed land and are in cultivatory possession since long; hence they are the khatedars of the said land. On this basis, Assistant Collector (Headquarter), Jodhpur has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree 24.9.1998. Therefore, the present reference deserves to be rejected. 6. They have placed reliance on the following citations : 1. 'State vs. Mansukh' RBJ (7) 2000 page 408 2. On this basis, Assistant Collector (Headquarter), Jodhpur has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree 24.9.1998. Therefore, the present reference deserves to be rejected. 6. They have placed reliance on the following citations : 1. 'State vs. Mansukh' RBJ (7) 2000 page 408 2. 'Sewa Ram vs. State of Rajasthan' RBJ (7) 2000 page 249 3. 'LRs of Rajjak vs. Board of Revenue & Ors.' RBJ (13) 2006 page 521 4. 'State of Rajasthan vs. Raj Gajendra Singh through LRs & Ors.' RBJ (13) 2006 page 193 5. 'State of Rajasthan vs. Girdhari Ram & Ors.' RBJ (16) 2009 page 129 6. ' State of Rajasthan vs. LRs of Raj Gajendra Singh' RRD 1994 page 523 7. 'State of Rajasthan vs. Teja & Ors.' RBJ (12) 2005 page 206 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and scanned the matter carefully. 8. From perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that concerned Tehsildar, Jodhpur has moved a reference application before learned District Collector, Jodhpur on the principal ground that Assistant Collector (Headquarter), Jodhpur has decreed the suit on the basis of oral evidence only and other enumerated grounds are ancillary in nature. 9. As per Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, while making this reference, the Collector has to examine the record for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order and thereafter only he has to form the opinion on the sound and cogent reasons for the reference of the case. Thus, Section 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act not only requires that Collector should satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of the order but also record the ground for referring the case to the Board for varying, canceling or reversing the impugned order. 10. Further, principle emerges from a consideration of what is stated above, an order must be a speaking one passed on the premises that Collector has considered all the aspects of the matter before him. It can be ascertained only if the order which he makes is a speaking order meaning thereby that Collector has bestowed due consideration to the facts and circumstances and he has arrived at the decision without favour to any party. It can be ascertained only if the order which he makes is a speaking order meaning thereby that Collector has bestowed due consideration to the facts and circumstances and he has arrived at the decision without favour to any party. The requirement of making a speaking order minimize the possibility of arbitrary exercise of power which discloses how the mind is applied to the subject matter while arriving at a decision. 11. In the light of above scenario, reference submitted by the District Collector, Jodhpur reveals that learned District Collector, Jodhpur has passed the reference order summarizing in a few two lines which do not suffice to explain the reasons for the District Collector's view that the decree dated 24.9.1998 should be quashed. Peeping into the reference dated 5.8.2002 makes it abundantly clear that learned District Collector did not act and scrutinize the matter in a judicial manner and passed the non-speaking order in a mechanical way without assigning any reasons for referring the case for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.9.1998 passed by Assistant Collector (Headquarter), Jodhpur. Hence, this reference is required to be returned for passing a speaking reasoned order. Consequently, the reference is returned to the District Collector, Jodhpur with the direction to send it again within two months from the date of receiving of this order after passing a speaking reasoned order. Pronounced in open Court.