ORDER : A.J. SHASTRI, J. 1. Present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge on 10.7.2017 in Special Civil Application No.10556 of 2017. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellants- original petitioners are in possession and occupation of the agricultural land, bearing Survey No.871 admeasuring 0-27 Gunthas situated at Mouje Gungadi Pati, Taluka Patan. They applied for regularization of their possession but, vide order dated 16.12.2011, the Collector did not consider the request, which has led the appellants to prefer a revision application before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) on 20.6.2014, whereby the order passed by the Collector came to be confirmed. The appellants challenged this order passed by the Revisional Authority by way of preferring a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.13276 of 2014, which came to be disposed of with a direction to the Secretary to consider all the materials which are produced before this Court and take a fresh decision by remanding the proceedings. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.10.2015. 3. It is the case of the appellants that there is a specific policy framed by the Government, vide Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980 whereby under the benevolent scheme, those persons who were in occupation of the agricultural land for their livelihood and are in occupation of the land can be considered for regularization and for which the guidelines have also been provided. On earlier occasion also, while disposing of the Revision Application No.32 of 2006, the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) was also pleased to remand the matter back to the Collector to reconsider in light of the policy of the Government, which is essentially meant for regularization of the alleged encroachment. It has been the case that over a period of 90 years from their forefathers’ tenure, the appellants are in occupation of the land in question and there is more than adequate material to indicate physical possession and according to the appellants, despite the fact that the proceedings have been remanded back to learned Special Secretary (Appeals), the authority did not consider the request and again reiterate the earlier view by passing the order on 27.3.2017 for which again, the appellants- petitioners were compelled to approach this Court. 4. 4. The appellants have further submitted that the writ petition which was numbered as 10556 of 2017 came up for consideration before learned Single Judge, and by way of an order dated 10.7.2017, learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the petition by a brief order and it is this order passed by learned Single Judge, is made the subject matter of the present Letters Patent Appeal before us. 5. Learned senior advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta assisted by Shri Devarshi Shah, learned advocate representing the appellants has vehemently contended that learned Single Judge has not dealt with the specific contentions which have been raised in the proceedings and has merely referred to and relied upon the conclusion arrived at by the authorities below which were under challenge. It is contended by learned senior counsel that from the bare look of the order passed by the original authority, i.e. the Collector, dated 26.12.2011, reflecting on page 48, is an unreasoned order and based upon some case dealt with by the Apex Court on the basis of which, one line order is passed. It has been seriously contended that no such decision of the Apex Court was made available though relied upon which has adversely affected the right of making effective representation. It has further been contended that even the Revisional Authority while examining such laconic order has also committed the very same error while disposing of the revision application and though narrated the sequence of events of litigation, but disposed of merely on the basis that pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980 as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, reported in (2011)11 SCC 396 , the case does not require any consideration. While contending this, our attention has been drawn to page 29 of the petition compilation as well as page 48 to submit that the exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities below is laconic, reflects non-application of mind and no justification while passing the orders. Learned senior counsel submitted that this laconic exercise of jurisdiction and the discretion ought to have been examined at length by learned Single Judge but, unfortunately, though specifically the contentions have been raised before learned Single Judge, the same have not been considered at length. Learned senior counsel submitted that this laconic exercise of jurisdiction and the discretion ought to have been examined at length by learned Single Judge but, unfortunately, though specifically the contentions have been raised before learned Single Judge, the same have not been considered at length. As a result of this, according to learned senior counsel, the matter requires fresh consideration in light of the policy framed by the Government. 6. Learned senior counsel Mr. Mehta has further contended that it is not in dispute that there is a policy framed by the Government, vide Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980, navigating the authorities below with the issue of regularization and here is a case in which occupation of the present appellants over the land in question is practically by now more than 100 years. This aspect ought not to have been ignored by learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition. 7. Learned senior counsel Mr. Mehta has further contended that according to the case of the appellants, they are squarely falling within the purview of the policy framed by the Government for regularization as reflecting in the Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980 and for that, there seems to be no justification as to why the case does not deserve to be considered in light of the policy of 1980. It is submitted that the copy of the order relied upon of the Apex Court has also not been provided during the course of proceedings as to how such decision is directly applied in the present background. As a result of this, non-supply of such material is also a violation of the principles of natural justice and hence unilaterally, the information is relied upon and the case is not considered. 8. Learned senior counsel Mr. Mehta has further submitted that even if two authorities below have concurrently held that regularization is not possible but, then it was expected to examine as to on what basis, said conclusion is arrived at. On the contrary, according to Mr. Mehta, the conclusion arrived at by the both the authorities is found to be perverse and not in consonance with the policy framed by the State authority. As a result of this, serious error is committed by learned Single Judge in not dealing with the issues which have been raised by the petitioners. 9. Learned senior counsel Mr. Mehta, the conclusion arrived at by the both the authorities is found to be perverse and not in consonance with the policy framed by the State authority. As a result of this, serious error is committed by learned Single Judge in not dealing with the issues which have been raised by the petitioners. 9. Learned senior counsel Mr. Mehta has submitted that the authorities below, including the Special Secretary, have not independently examined the issue and have not referred to as to why the resolution dated 8.1.1980, precisely clause Nos.(1), (3), (6) and (7) of it, is not to be considered so as to decide the request of the appellants for seeking regularization. That being so, this very exercise of jurisdiction by the authorities below having remained laconic, learned Single Judge ought to have set at naught the said decision. It was specifically a case of the appellants before the authority that in Pani-patrik as well as the Panchnama, it is clearly reflecting that over a period of 90 years, the possession is of the appellants and cultivation is also visible since years and the land has never been used for cremation purpose in any form. Since this fact is reflecting, at least, it was expected from the authorities to deal with and examine such specific contentions which have been raised. A detailed memo raising such orders has been brought to our notice by Mr. Mehta and it has been vehemently contended that only on this count of non-dealing with the contentions and the circumstances, the matter requires fresh consideration by learned Collector since apparently, one line order is passed by the authority, learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the proceedings back to the Collector for taking independent decision on the basis of the material available on record. 10. After hearing learned senior advocate Mr. Mehta and after perusal of the material on record, we prima facie found that the case put up by the appellants is that over a period of 90 years, the land is being used by them and they are in physical possession and furthermore, the land has never been used since number of years for cremation purpose. The resolution has also been brought to our notice which is dealing with an issue of regularization of encroachment, referred to on page 37 of the compilation. The resolution has also been brought to our notice which is dealing with an issue of regularization of encroachment, referred to on page 37 of the compilation. Clause (3) and (6) of the resolution dated 8.1.1980 clearly suggest that if the persons are found to be in possession of the land in question, unauthorizedly and if the land is not in a position to be utilized for any other public purpose, nor on account of which any prejudice is likely to be caused, the case of regularization can be considered. Now, in the context of this resolution and the clauses contained therein, the circumstances which were projected before us that this land has never been utilized for any other purpose and for 90 years, the appellants are prima facie in physical possession, are residing and cultivating the land, which reflects from the revenue record, it was incumbent on the part of the authority to examine the case in light of this resolution. It may be that the regularization request may not be considered but there must be some justification which is apparently missing from the bare look of the order passed by the authority below. 11. Additionally, we also found from the record that much emphasis has been made on the decision delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra) delivered on 28.1.2011 but the said decision has never been provided to the appellants during the course of hearing nor it has been explained as to how in the background of this peculiar set of circumstance, the same can be applied and there appears to be no reason, which is evidently found not only from the order of the Collector dated 26.12.2011 but even from the order of the Secretary even after remand. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that both the authorities have laconically disposed of the proceedings without any cogent reasons. Even the contentions which have been raised appear to have not been dealt with and discussed nor examined. That being the position, we are of the view that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated this aspect before dismissing the petition. 12. Even the contentions which have been raised appear to have not been dealt with and discussed nor examined. That being the position, we are of the view that learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated this aspect before dismissing the petition. 12. Additionally, we have also been taken to the recommendation which has been made on earlier occasion by the Collector, such recommendation is reflecting on page 72 and 73 wherein, in the month of March 2007, after examining the material, even the recommendation is given by the Collector since occupation of the appellants is found to be of more than 90 years, that recommendation and positive opinion appear to have not been dealt with by the authorities below which is an additional ground for remanding the proceedings back to the authority. 13. Time and again, the Apex Court has emphasized to deal with and decide the contentions which have been raised during the course of the proceedings by assigning cogent reasons. (1) In the case of Mayurbhai Kantibhai Gohil Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in 2015 (1) GLR 894 , this Hon’ble Court has held and observed in para 11 as under:- 11. It is well settled that while granting and/or refusing interim order, the Court has to assign briefly some reason. The Apex Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India and others, (2010) 13 SCC 427 observed in paragraph 40 as under :- “40. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in para 51 of the judgment which are set out below :- (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". (2) In the case of Kushuma Devi Vs. Sheopati Devi (Dead) and Another reported in (2019)5 SCC 744 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held and observed in para 7, 8, 11 and 12 as under:- 7. The need to remand the case to the High Court has occasioned because from the perusal of the impugned order dated 27.07.2012 quoted above, we find that it is an unreasoned order. In other words, the High Court neither discussed the issues arising the case, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged by the parties and nor assigned any reason as to why it has dismissed the writ petition. 8. This Court has consistently laid down that every judicial or/and quasi-judicial order passed by the Court/ Tribunal/ Authority concerned, which decides the lis between the parties, must be supported with the reasons in support of its conclusion. The parties to the lis and so also the appellate/ revisionary Court while examining the correctness of the order are entitled to know as to on which basis, a particular conclusion is arrived at in the order. In the absence of any discussion, the reasons and the findings on the submissions urged, it is not possible to know as to what led the Court/Tribunal/Authority for reaching to such conclusion. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the writ petition afresh, out of which these appeals arise, for its disposal in accordance with law keeping in view the observations made above. 12. Since we have formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for its fresh disposal on merits, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case while deciding these appeals. 12. Since we have formed an opinion to remand the case to the High Court for its fresh disposal on merits, we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case while deciding these appeals. The High Court will, therefore, decide the writ petition uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court in this order as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months. 14. From the aforesaid observations made in the decisions, referred to above, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by learned Single Judge is not proper and we also found that the authorities have also not assigned any cogent reasons which led us to believe that the matter requires fresh consideration. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge as well as the orders passed by the Special Secretary Revenue Department (Appeals) and the Collector and remit the matter back to the Collector to decide the claim of the appellants afresh and independently and strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made in the impugned orders. We expect that while exercising the jurisdiction, the Collector shall take into consideration all the circumstances that may be projected before him and prevailing on record and shall decide afresh the claim of the appellants for seeking regularization keeping in view the Government Resolution dated 8.1.1980. It is made clear that we have not expressed our opinion on merit as we are directing the authorities to reconsider afresh. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed and consequently, the connected Civil Application No.2 of 2018 also stands disposed of.