(Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Jamindari return is contained in 'Annexure-2 to the writ petition' and in respect of continuous possession over the plot appertaining to Khata No. 525, Khesra No. 176, measuring total area of 741/2 decimal situated in Mauza Patam, after vesting of the Jamindari to give effect the settlement made in favour of the petitioner, rent receipt has been brought on record by way of 'Annexure-4 to the writ petition'. She further submitted that the land in question of the petitioner has been acquired for widening of the Railway Station without initiating any acquisition proceeding. The petitioner is entitled for due compensation in accordance with Patna High Court CWJC No.17999 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026 4/11 the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 as amended up-to-date. She further submitted that recorded evidence is in favour of the petitioner that petitioner is in possession of the land but without following the due process of law, petitioner has been deprived of his right over his property as enshrined under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India, which requires that dispossession can only be after following due process of law. Learned counsel, in this regard, has relied on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidaya Devi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2020(2) SCC 569.

6. No one has tendered appearance on behalf of the respondent/s but this Court, on the basis of recorded evidence, which has been brought by the petitioner, finds out that Circle Officer has admitted the continuous possession of the petitioner at least till the year 2020, for which, a revenue receipt has been issued in favour of the petitioner for the Financial Year 2019-20 and the petitioner has claimed that after vesting of Jamindari and settlement made by ex Jamindar, the continuous possession cannot be questioned without following due process of law. The petitioner has already filed objection by way of sending legal Patna High Court CWJC No.17999 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026 5/11 notice to the Chairman, Railway Board.

7. It is commonly seen that the officers having quasi judicial power often delay in considering the representation filed by the aggrieved person or they deliberately delay to even adjudicate those cases where they exercise their adjudicatory power, while, it is well settled principle of law that High Courts should not exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if an effective and efficacious remedy is available. Taking into the circumstances of the present case where fundamental/constitutional right of a citizen is infringed, this Court must not fail to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. It is also well settled principle of law that every administrative action in want of reason is not sustainable as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. The relevant paragraph is reproduced hereinbelow:

making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(e) 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 lifeblood 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 Patna High Court CWJC No.17999 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026 7/11 also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor32).

(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 Ruiz Torija vs. Spain33 EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford34, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the 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".

9. The law in this regard has been laid down by the Apex Court in the Case of M/s Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. Versus The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in LL 2021 SC 495, paragraphs no. 19 and 28 would be relevant in this regard, which is as under:-

10. Now question arises whether this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the facts of the present writ petition in case respondents have acted without jurisdiction. Law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax v. M/s Commercial Steel Limited (Civil Appeal No. 5121 of 2021). In State of HP v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd & Anr. , reported in (2005) SCC 6 499 this Court has held that a writ petition is maintainable before the High Court if the taxing authorities have acted beyond the scope Patna High Court CWJC No.17999 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026 9/11 of their jurisdiction. This Court observed:

11. To consider whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the present writ petition, I find it apt to refer mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India which tends to safeguard the invaluable right to property.

12. The State as per the constitutional provision cannot disposes a citizen of his property except in accordance with law and procedure prescribed. The obligation to pay compensation is not expressively included in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India can be inferred in that Article. The law in this regard is well settled by the Apex Court in case of Vidaya Devi Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported in Patna High Court CWJC No.17999 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026 10/11 2020(2) SCC 569, I find it proper to quote the para-12.1 and 12.2 of the said judgment , which are inter alia reproduced hereinafter;

12.2. The right to property ceased to be a fundamental right by the Constitution (Forty-Fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 , however, it continued to be a human right [Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353 in a welfare State, and a constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Article 300-A provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. The State cannot dispossess a citizen of his property except in accordance with the procedure established by law. The obligation to pay compensation, though not expressly included in Article 300-A , can be inferred in that Article. [ K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka , (2011) 9 SCC 1"

13. The above proposition of law has again been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of Dharnidhar Mishra (D) and Another vs. State of Bihar and Others, in Civil Appeal No. 6351 of 2024, reported in (2024) 10 Supreme Court Cases 605, is relevant. The paragraph is reproduced as under:-

14. The Petitioner may represent before the District Patna High Court CWJC No.17999 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026 11/11 Magistrate cum Collector, Munger, who is required to call for revenue records from the Circle office and after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and upon verification of the records and after holding physical verification of the land described and claimed by the petitioner, give a specific finding, whether the land, which has been acquired is subject matter of the notification of acquisition, which has been taken for construction of northern side of Railway Platform at Patam Halt in the district of Munger.

15. In case, the land of the petitioner has been acquired, the District Magistrate is required to take steps by informing the Divisional Railway Manager, Malda, having jurisdiction over the Eastern Railway, and the Land Acquisition Officer, Munger for making payment of compensation to the petitioner at the present M.V.R. prevailing in the area in accordance with Act, 2013.

16. With aforesaid observation/direction, the present writ petition stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/-