JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is to the judgment and order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur, in Revenue Revision Case No. 50 of 2019. 2. By order dated 25.06.2020, this Court suspended the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 03.03.2020. 3. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner; and Mr. Romendro Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The case of the petitioner is that his father purchased a piece of land in Patta No. 130 (old), 110(new) of Heirangoithong Maibam Leikai in Village No. 62 - Maibam Leikai, Imphal West under registered sale deed dated 29.07.1970 from one Laishram Malika. At the behest of the petitioner, Demarcation Case No. 2/SDC/IW(C)2012 was taken up by the revenue authorities. The spot verification/demarcation of the land was conducted by the field staff of the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central), on 03.01.2016 and objections were called for in that regard under Memorandum dated 10.02.2016. After considering the objections received from the respondents herein, the Sub-Deputy Collector decided to ascertain the total area in the original old record under Patta No. 110(old), 145(new) covered by C.S. Dag No. 6 of Revenue Village No. 62 - Maibam Leikai. 5. Ultimately, the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (Central), disposed of Dem.Case No. 2/SDC/IW(C)2012 by order dated 21.03.2016. By the said order, he noted that the spot verification/demarcation of the land was conducted by the field staff on 03.01.2016 and, thereafter, objections were received from the respondents in that regard. He then referred to his earlier order requiring the total area to be determined and stated that one Jiten Sharma, C/Mandol of his office, had carried out the said order on 17.03.2016 and final/necessary pegs were given to all the concerned parties after demarcating the land. Stating so, he disposed of the case. 6. It appears that the respondents herein filed Revenue Appeal Demarcation Case No. 1 of 2016 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lamphel, Imphal West, against this order. However, in their wisdom, they chose to withdraw it. Order dated 16.07.2016 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lamphel, Imphal West, disposing of the said appeal as withdrawn without liberty to file another fresh appeal before him. The respondents then filed Revenue Revision Case No. 48 of 2016 before the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur. 7. However, in their wisdom, they chose to withdraw it. Order dated 16.07.2016 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lamphel, Imphal West, disposing of the said appeal as withdrawn without liberty to file another fresh appeal before him. The respondents then filed Revenue Revision Case No. 48 of 2016 before the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur. 7. This case was disposed of by the Tribunal by way of the impugned order dated 03.03.2020. Therein, the Tribunal merely recorded that the counsel for the petitioners in the Revenue Revision Case, viz., the respondents herein, submitted that the order dated 21.03.2016 was passed based on the sale deed without following the technical procedure of demarcation and that the counsel prayed for demarcation according to law. The Tribunal thereupon set aside the order dated 21.03.2016 (wrongly shown as 12.03.2016 in the order) passed in Dem.Case No. 2/SDC/IW(C)2012 and directed the Sub-Deputy Collector, Imphal West (C), to proceed with fresh demarcation according to law. 8. No reasons were furnished by the Tribunal as to why it found the demarcation referred to in the order dated 21.03.2016 to be defective or inadequate. Needless to state, an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority necessarily has to reflect the reasons therefor. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [ (2004) 5 SCC 568 ], reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same it becomes lifeless. 9. As the Tribunal failed to disclose the reasons for its conclusion as to why the earlier demarcation was not sufficient and a fresh demarcation was required, the order dated 03.03.2020 passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Manipur, in Revenue Revision Case No. 50 of 2019 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the Tribunal for consideration afresh on merits and in accordance with law and for passing a reasoned order. This exercise shall be completed expeditiously and preferably within 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 11. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.