Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 851 (JHR)

Santu Gope v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-24

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order : Seeking quashing of order dated 16.11.2010 in S.A.R. Revision No. 045 of 2010 and order dated 20.03.2010 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 10R15 of 2009, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. An application under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 was filed by one Lalo Baraikrespondent no. 8. A notice was issued to the petitioner however, the said application was decided exparte, directing restoration of land in question in favour of respondent no. 8. The petitioner has claimed right, title and interest over the land comprised in Khata No. 66, bearing Plot Nos. 158, 186, 549 and 849 in villageKute Toli, Jagarnathpur, Ranchi which was recorded in the name of one Chaitu Badaik. It is asserted that the wife of said Chaitu Badaik namely, Most. Punia Devi adopted the petitioner on 29.03.1973 through registered deed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 26.03.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority though, recorded the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, dismissed the appeal on the ground that the land belonging to the Scheduled Tribes cannot be transferred to a nontribal on the basis of adoption deed. The Revisional Authority ignored the error committed by the S.A.R. Officer as well as the Appellate Authority and merely stating that no permission of Deputy Commissioner was taken for transfer, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. In opposition, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 supports the impugned orders and submits that it is not denied by the petitioner that he is a nontribal and the land in question is a tribal land. 3. While adjudicating valuable rights of parties, reasons must be recorded, is the mandate of law. In “Union of India Vs. Ibrahim Uddin & Anr.” (2012) 8 SCC 148 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 44. “It is settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. “It is settled legal proposition that not only administrative order, but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable, particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is the principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decisionmaking. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected.” 4. As noticed above, the petitioner has claimed interest in the suit land on the basis of adoption deed. The petitioner has asserted that he succeeded the interest of Chaitu Badaik. The adoption deed dated 29.03.1973 is a registered deed. From order dated 26.03.2010 in SAR Appeal Case No. 10R15/2009, it appears that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground that the adoption deed has been cancelled. From the appellate order, it does not appear whether the parties adduced evidence on the question of validity of the adoption deed or not. Curiously, the Appellate Authority has recorded that by virtue of adoption deed, Khatiyani land of a member of a Scheduled Tribes cannot be “transferred” in favour of a nontribal. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if this is not a case of transfer, the provisions of C.N.T. Act would not apply. The Revisional Authority by cryptic order has summarily dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that if this is not a case of transfer, the provisions of C.N.T. Act would not apply. The Revisional Authority by cryptic order has summarily dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner. 5. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that impugned order dated 16.11.2010 in S.A.R. Revision No. 045 of 2010 is liable to be setaside. The writ petition stands allowed to the above extent and the matter is remitted to the Revisional Authority for a consideration, afresh.