1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1109 OF 1991. 1. Mohd. Khalil s/o Ismailsab, age major, occu. Agriculture, R/o Bahadurpura, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded. 2. Shri Sadad Beg s/o Mainulla Beg, age major, occu. Agriculture, r/o as above. 3. Syed Rashid s/o Syed Ahmed, age major, occu. Agriculture, r/o as above. .... PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3. Collector, Nanded, 4. Tahsildar, Kandhar, Dist.Nanded. .... RESPONDENTS. ... Shri P.V. Mandlik, Sr. Counsel for petitioners. Shri R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. RESERVED ON: 06th JANUARY, 2010. PRONOUNCED ON: 07th JANUARY, 2010. 2 JUDGMENT: 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.3.1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad in Appeal No.Inam/WTN/CR-91 and the order dated 9.1.1991 passed by the Collector, Nanded bearing No. 90/AB/D3/Atiyat/CR-11/89, in respect of land Survey No.33 situated at Kandhar, District Nanded. 2. The brief facts of the case are, as under: One Mr. Sayed Jalal was the occupant of lands survey No.33/1, 33/2, 34/1, 34/2, 34/3 and 34/4 situated at Bahadurpura, taluka Kandhar. After his death, his sons Sayed Ahmad and Sayed Fatehulla were in occupation of the said lands jointly. Subsequently, the Inam was abolished. Sayed Ahmed was asked by the authority to deposit occupancy price and the same was deposited by him and ownership was accordingly conferred under the provisions of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inam and Cash Grants Act. 3 3. Subsequently, there was partition of the lands between both the sons of Syed Jalal. In the year, 1980 permission was obtained by Sayed Fatehulla for alienation of his land and it was sold to Moinuddin s/o Kamruddin and thereafter, he sold the lands survey No.33/2, 34/1 and 34/4 to the present petitioner No.1 by executing a sale deed and since then petitioner is in lawful possession as owner of this land and name of the petitioner was mutated in revenue record. Since then the petitioners are possessors of the lands. 4. The Tahsildar, Kandhar issued notice dated 20.9.1990 to the petitioner No.3 alleging therein that land survey No.33/1 appears to be Mushrut- ul-Khidmat and possession was illegal. The Tahsildar sent a letter to the Collector, Nanded and on the basis of it, the Collector passed order on 9.1.1991 directing the Tahsildar to attach and auction the suit land of the petitioners. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, 4 petitioner preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner under the provisions of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inam and Cash Grants Act but the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad rejected the appeal. Hence, the present petition. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner rejecting the revision is a non-speaking order. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad has rejected the revision by passing only one word order i.e. “Rejected”. The learned Senior Counsel also took me through the grounds raised in the petition and submitted that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents – State vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the authorities below have held against the petitioners and, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the writ jurisdiction. 5 8. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for the respondents – State, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 7.3.1991 in Revision No.1991/WTN/A/6 is a non-speaking order. By this time, it is well settled that any order passed by the Judicial Officer or Quasi Judicial Officer should be a speaking order. At least, some reasons are required to be given while allowing or rejecting the appeal or revision, as the case may be. The impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner even does not refer to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. From perusal of the impugned order, it does not appear that the parties were heard. The impugned order is totally unsustainable since it is passed without assigning any reason. 9. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad on 7.3.1991 in Revision No.1991/WTN/A/6 is quashed and set aside. The Revision No.1991/WTN/A/6 is restored to its original position and remanded back to the 6 Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad for consideration afresh. The Additional Commissioner shall give fair and reasonable hearing to the parties and then decide the revision by passing a speaking order. The interim relief granted by this Court by order dated 26th March, 1991 in terms of prayer clause (C) of the petition will continue to operate, during the pendency of the revision and also for further four weeks, in case any adverse order is passed in the revision. Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs. [ S.S. SHINDE, J ] ... PLK/* 7 WRIT PETITION NO.1109 OF 1991. Date of decision :07.01.2010. For approval and signature. THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? } No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. [Prakash Kadam] Private Secretary to the Honourable Judge.