Sugan Chandra vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 WP-43764-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 28 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 43764 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030292782026
SUGAN CHANDRA AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M P S Raghuwanshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Ashwini Johri -
Advocate for petitioners.
Smt. Monika Mishra - Govt. Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been
filed by the petitioners seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed;
(ii) That, Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly
a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order dated
02.09.2026 passed by the learned Board of Revenue, Gwalior, in
Revision No. 1219/2009/Sheopur/Land Records (Sugan and
Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others), contained in Annexure P/1;
Quash the order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the learned
Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, in Case
No. 74/08-09/Appeal, contained in Annexure P/2; Quash the order
dated 30.01.2009 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sheopur, in Case No. 124/2007-08/Appeal Maal, contained in
Annexure P/3, as well as the order dated 18.08.2008 passed by the
learned Sub-Divisional Officer, rejecting the application filed
under Sections 52 and 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue
Code, 1959, contained in Annexure P/4 and quash the order dated
26.06.2008 passed by the learned Tehsildar, Sheopur, under
Section 248 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959,
directing the eviction of the petitioners from the land in question
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:38:20 AM

2 WP-43764-2026
bearing Survey Nos. 466, 545, 491, 547 and 555, situated at
Village Tulsaf, Tehsil and District Sheopur, contained in
Annexure P/5;
(iii) That, it may be held that the impugned order dated 26.06.2008
passed by the learned Tehsildar, Sheopur, under Section 248 of
the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, is without
jurisdiction and contrary to law, in view of the petitioners' claim
of longstanding possession over the land in question and the
judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court,
(iv) That, respondents may kindly be directed not to dispossess the
petitioners from the land in question otherwise than in accordance
with law and to protect their possession in accordance with the
judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court,
(v) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the
petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioners."

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
impugned order dated 02.09.2026 passed by the Board of Revenue is a non-
speaking order, inasmuch as the material grounds raised by the petitioners
have not been dealt with and no cogent reasons have been assigned for
rejecting their revision. It is contended that the petitioners have been in
possession of the land bearing Survey Nos.466, 545, 491, 547 and 555,
situated at Village Tulsaf, Tehsil and District Sheopur, for a considerable
period and the land in question is recorded as Aukaf land. According to the
petitioners, they are cultivating the land as Shikmi Kastkars and cannot be
treated as encroachers in the manner alleged by the authorities.
Learned counsel further submits that the authorities have failed to
consider the effect of the judgment and decree dated 17.02.1990 passed by
the competent Civil Court, as well as the objection regarding the jurisdiction
of the Tehsildar to initiate proceedings under Section 248 of the M.P. Land
Revenue Code in respect of the land in question. It is urged that the Board of
Revenue has dismissed the revision, inter alia, on the ground that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:38:20 AM

3 WP-43764-2026
proceedings had remained pending for a considerable period, without

properly examining the issues raised by the petitioners on their merits. It is,
therefore, contended that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and supports the
impugned order. It is submitted that the proceedings under Section 248 of the
M.P. Land Revenue Code were initiated pursuant to the order passed by the
Collector, District Sheopur, and the orders passed by the revenue authorities
do not warrant interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the State,
therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The controversy involved in the present petition, at this stage, is
required to be examined in the light of the settled legal position regarding the
necessity of recording reasons by judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative
authorities while passing orders affecting the rights of the parties.
The requirement of passing a reasoned and speaking order is an
essential facet of fair decision-making. An authority exercising statutory or
quasi-judicial powers is required to demonstrate, through its reasons, the
relevant facts, the contentions advanced by the parties and the applicable
legal principles have been duly considered. An order which merely records a
conclusion without disclosing the basis for arriving at such conclusion does
not adequately reflect the application of mind by the decision-making
authority and also impedes effective judicial review.
The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:38:20 AM

4 WP-43764-2026
Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010)

9 SCC 496 highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 15
held that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even an
administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must
not be like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
aforesaid matter in para 47 has laid certain principles with regard to necessity
of passing the reasoned/speaking order, which reads as under:-
"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons,
even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone
prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its
conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider
principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also
appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any
possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even
administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the
decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of
a decision making process as observing principles of natural
justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative
bodies.
g. 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 life blood 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:38:20 AM

5 WP-43764-2026
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 also makes
them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence
of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
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 (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at
para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405,
wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of 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"."

In view of the aforesaid legal position and the principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is of the
considered view that the impugned order dated 02.09.2026 passed by the
Board of Revenue, Gwalior, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed in part. The order dated
02.09.2026 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior, in
Revision No.1219/2009/Sheopur/Land Records is hereby set aside, and the
matter is remanded back to the Board of Revenue for fresh consideration and
decision in accordance with law. The Board of Revenue shall afford proper
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and pass a reasoned and
speaking order, dealing with the relevant contentions raised by them,
preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order. The petitioners shall be at liberty to move an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:38:20 AM

6 WP-43764-2026
appropriate application seeking interim relief before the Board of Revenue.

Till then filing of the said application, no coercive steps shall be taken
against the petitioners.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/29/2026
11:38:20 AM