L M\ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3451 OF 2006 PETITIONER Banb Singh, S/o Bhag Singh, Aged about 75 years, R/o Telibandha, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ‘ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Shri Yashwant Singh, Iearned G.A. for the State. ORAL O DER 1Passed on 18 July, 2006) The petitioner who is an Ex-Service man having 5 acres of land made an application to the Collector‘ Mahasamund, the 2’” respondent herein, under Section 165 (7) of Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code for permission to alienate two acres of land out of the said five acres of land. ‘ That application has been rejected by the 3“ respondent by order (Annexure-P/1) dated 19.01.2006. l have perused the impugned order. The 2“ respondent summarily rejected the application of the petitioner vide his order dated 19.01 .2006 on the basis of a report submitted by the Naib Tahsildar, Bagbahara, the 3'“ respondent herein. It is expected that a statutory authority like the 2““ respondent while exercising the power conferred under the statute has to exercise the power reasonably, fairly and not arbitrarily. lt is also expected of such authority to give reasons in 2 The Collector, Mahasamund (C.G.) 3. The Nayab Tahsildar, Bagbahara, (C.G.) Present: Shri Ashok Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner. support of his decision, because, his decision is iiabie to be reviewed by the Constitution Court under Article 226. ‘ If the reasons are not disclosed, it will be rather dimcuit for the Court to appreciate what factors and reasons weighed with the statutory authority in making the decision. Compulsion to disclose reason will also avoid arbitrary exercise of the power a statutory authority. (2) It was stated at the Bar that the petitioner is very much aged now and his children are well settled and therefore, they are hot dependent upon the five acres of land assigned to the petitioner for their livelihood and that is the reason why the petitioner wants to alienate two acres out of t'rve acres of land to discharge hisloan liability incurred by him. ln such a situation, the District Collector should have applied his mind and passed appropriate order. ln that view of the matter, l allow this writ petition and set-aside the impugned order of the 2”“ respondent. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner de novo and dispose of the same by a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Sdl— Chief Justice 7<am1att [a g