Sub-Divisional Officer Can't Merely Agree With Tahsildar, Must Give Reasons For Its Order Rejecting Correction Of Record: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a Sub-Divisional Officer cannot merely sustain its order by stating that it agrees with the report submitted to it by the area Tahsildar. Reasons to support the findings of the order must be given, it held.

Justice G.S. Ahluwalia thus set aside an unreasoned order passed by the SDO rejecting petitioner's application for correction of revenue records and remanded back the matter back for deciding afresh, after providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties to meet out the report submitted by Tahsildar.

Background

The petitioner had filed a civil suit and an order of temporary injunction was passed. The petitioner further filed an application for correction of record and by impugned order dated 9.7.2024 the said application was rejected.

The petitioner contended that he was not granted any opportunity to object to the report submitted by the Tahsildar.

As per record, an application for correction of record was filed by the petitioner 18.8.2023. On 18.9.2023, a report from Patwari was sought. Patwari submitted his report to the Tahsildar, which was considered by Tahsildar. The Tahsildar thereafter forwarded the report to SDO who, by impugned order dated 9.7.2024, accepted the report and rejected the application.

Revenue contended that an alternate remedy exists with the petitioner and hence writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked.

At the outset, the court referred to Central Board of Trustees v. M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd C.A. No.7240/2018, wherein it was observed, “Time and again, this Court has emphasized on the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion.”

The court further referred to Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar (2022) 4 SCC 497, wherein it was observed, “Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.”

Thus, it was held that in the absence of any reasons to support the findings, the order passed by SDO (Revenue), Katni cannot be upheld.

The court observed, “Once the petitioner is not aware of the reasons for accepting the report submitted by Patwari through Tahsildar, Katni, then the Court can ignore the availability of alternative remedy because in absence of reasons, the petitioner is not in a position to meet out the grounds on which his application was rejected.”

Hence, the order passed by SDO was set aside.

Case Title: JAIRAMDAS KUKREJA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS, WRIT PETITION No. 20408 of 2024

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 252

Click Here To Read/Download Order