- (1.) WITH the consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally at this stage itself.
(2.) THE short point involved in this matter has arisen in the background of the facts that an appeal (Revenue Appeal No. 46/2010) has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 15.04.2010 as passed by the Tehsildar, Desuri in relation to the dispute about mutation in the revenue record; and the same is pending before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Jodhpur. The respondent No. 6 herein, moved an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the said appellate authority for being impleaded as a party in the appeal with the assertion that he was a bona fide purchaser of 1/4th of the land in question. The application was contested on behalf of the petitioner with the submissions that the applicant, who had allegedly purchased the land in question during the pendency of the litigation, could not be impleaded as a party. After noticing the rival stands, what the learned Additional Divisional Commissioner has observed in the order dated 01.03.2012, as passed in the disposal of the application aforesaid, reads as under:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Though several submissions are sought to be made by the learned counsel for the petitioner questioning the order impugned and the same are sought to be countered by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents but, without going into any other aspect of the matter, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained for the very fundamental reason that it remains an entirely non-speaking one, bereft of even a whisper of reasoning. It is to be imbibed by the authorities concerned that in the proceedings which are essentially judicial in nature, every order having co-relation with the rights of the parties is required to be a reasonably speaking one; and any pronouncement on contentious question requires the support of the reasons. An order passed without reasons cannot be considered to be an order at all. It remains non-est and cannot be approved. It is definitely expected of the authorities concerned to deal with the matters in accordance with law and to state the reasons for their decision. It may not be necessary to pass an elaborate and detailed order on every issue and every question but then, even a short order has to carry reasons.
(3.) THE impugned order dated 01.03.2012 is an apposite example of a non-speaking order where the subordinate revenue authority has not stated any reason whatsoever in support of its conclusion. On this ground alone, the impugned order is required to be set aside. In view of the above, this petition deserves to succeed to the extent that the impugned order dated 01.03.2012 be set aside and the application for impleadment be restored for consideration afresh. Consequently, the petition is allowed to the extent and in the manner that the impugned order dated 01.03.2012 is set aside; and the application as moved by the respondent No. 6 for impleadment is restored for reconsideration of the appellate authority, who shall be expected to deal with the same in accordance with law keeping in view the observations foregoing. ;