JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ayush Aditya, counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Senior counsel assisted by Ms. Anjana Rana, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.6 to 17. 3. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, Associate counsel to Standing counsel (Mines) appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 5. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “For quashing the order dated 25.05.2012 (Annexure-5) passed by Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka (Respondent No. (2) in R.M.A. No.520/1985-86), as also the order dated 13/27.1.1986 (Annexure-4) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka (Respondent No.3) in Rev. Misc. Appeal No.179/1982-83, whereby and whereunder the Respondent No.2 and 3 have passed a very cryptic and unreasoned order while setting aside the detailed and reasoned order dated 5.8.1982 (Annexure-3) passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka (Respondent No.4) in S.R. Case No.120 of 1980-81, whereby and whereunder the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka rejected the applications of the private Respondents praying for settlement of Plot Nos.19, 48 and 130 of Village- Baijandih, P.S.- Jarmundi leaving out of a part of Plot No.19 and had accepted the case of the petitioners raised in their objection to the prayer of settlement made by the private respondents interalia on the ground that the said lands had already been settled by the Pradhan of the Village in favour of the petitioners by relying upon enquiry reports submitted by the Circle Inspector dated 25.3.1981 (Annexure-1) as also the report of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (Annexure-2), who, upon making spot inspection and verification had found the petitioners’ case of settlement by the Pradhan of the village on 5.6.1942 as correct and had further reported that the petitioners were all along in possession and as such, the application for settlement filed by the original private respondent no.5 to 11 was rejected; as also for the issuance of such other writ, order or direction as may appear just and proper for doing equitable justice to the petitioner.” 5. Counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure-5 being order dated 25.05.2012 passed in R.M.A. No.520 of 1985-86 by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and submits that the said order is a non-speaking order. 6. Counsel for the petitioners refers to Annexure-5 being order dated 25.05.2012 passed in R.M.A. No.520 of 1985-86 by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and submits that the said order is a non-speaking order. 6. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the first page of the said order the case of the petitioners has been recorded and the case of the respondents starts from the 2nd page of the order and the findings of the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka reads as follows: “After perusal the record, hearing the learned counsels of both parties and going through the lower court record I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned court below, but all enquires and facts are not satisfactory. I direct the learned S.D.O., Dumka to inspect the plots with Anchal Adhikari and Anchal Amen and after enquiry get these lands settled with actual Dakhalkar and after being settled by the S.D.O., the survey authorities are directed to correct the entries according to the order of settlement passed by the S.D.O. with these observations the case is disposed of.” 7. Counsel for the petitioners submits that from the perusal of the impugned order dated 25.05.2012 it appears that the order is a non-speaking order and the authority has not considered the materials available on record while passing the impugned order. 8. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2010) 4 SCC 785 to advance his arguments. He has relied upon following paragraphs of the said judgment: “24. Reason is the very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton’s Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of reasoning in any rule of law. Giving reasons furthers the cause of justice as well as avoids uncertainty. As a matter of fact it helps in the observance of law of precedent. Absence of reasons on the contrary essentially introduces an element of uncertainty, dissatisfaction and give entirely different dimensions to the questions of law raised before the higher/appellate courts. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be. 25. In our view, the court should provide its own grounds and reasons for rejecting claim/prayer of a party whether at the very threshold i.e. at admission stage or after regular hearing, howsoever concise they may be. 25. We would reiterate the principle that when reasons are announced and can be weighed, the public can have assurance that process of correction is in place and working. It is the requirement of law that correction process of judgments should not only appear to be implemented but also seem to have been properly implemented. Reasons for an order would ensure and enhance public confidence and would provide due satisfaction to the consumer of justice under our justice dispensation system. It may not be very correct in law to say, that there is a qualified duty imposed upon the courts to record reasons. 26. Our procedural law and the established practice, in fact, imposes unqualified obligation upon the courts to record reasons. There is hardly any statutory provision under the Income Tax Act or under the Constitution itself requiring recording of reasons in the judgments but it is no more res integra and stands unequivocally settled by different judgments of this Court holding that the courts and tribunals are required to pass reasoned judgments/orders. In fact, Order 14 Rule 2 read with Order 20 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that, the court should record findings on each issue and such findings which obviously should be reasoned would form part of the judgment, which in turn would be the basis for writing a decree of the court. 27. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judge-made law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and, in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and proper reasoning is the foundation of a just and fair decision. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. there are apt observations in this regard to say “failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are the real live links to the administration of justice. With respect we will contribute to this view. There is a rationale, logic and purpose behind a reasoned judgment. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. there are apt observations in this regard to say “failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice”. Reasons are the real live links to the administration of justice. With respect we will contribute to this view. There is a rationale, logic and purpose behind a reasoned judgment. A reasoned judgment is primarily written to clarify own thoughts; communicate the reasons for the decision to the concerned and to provide and ensure that such reasons can be appropriately considered by the appellate/higher court. Absence of reasons thus would lead to frustrate the very object stated hereinabove.” 9. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that by the impugned order direction has been issued to S.D.O., Dumka to inspect the plots with Anchal Adhikari and Anchal Amen and to pass appropriate order and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned order. However, counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the fact that the impugned order dated 25.05.2012 is a non-speaking order, this Court is inclined to set-aside the order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M.A. No.520 of 1985-86 and remand the matter back to the said authority for passing the fresh speaking order after hearing the parties. 11. At this, counsel for the parties agree to appear before the said authority on 15.05.2018. If any of the parties appear on 15.05.2018, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka is directed to proceed with the matter and pass a speaking order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.