http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  5220 of 2004

PETITIONER: Cyril Lasrado (dead) by Lrs. and Ors.    

RESPONDENT: Juliana Maria Lasrado and Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/08/2004

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

(Arising out of SLP) No. 21831/2002)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

       Leave granted.

       Judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court  affirming the order passed by a learned Single Judge is the subject matter of  challenge in this appeal.  

Factual aspects need to be noted in some detail.  

       The Land Tribunal, Mangalore, Taluk Mangalore (in short the  ’Tribunal’) by order dated 19.10.1978 accepted the prayer of one Cyril  Lasrado (applicant before it) wherein he had prayed for recording his name  as occupant of the concerned land. The applicant was the predecessor-in- interest of the present appellants. By the said order, the Tribunal directed  registration of Cyril Lasrado as the occupant of the land mentioned in the  order in terms of Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (in  short the ’Act’). Since certain reliefs which were prayed for had not been  granted, Cyril Lasrado filed a Writ Petition No. 29259 of 1992 before the  Karnataka High Court. Respondent who was the General Power of Attorney  holder and the respondent no. 2 filed an application to be impleaded in the  writ petition which was rejected. Suit bearing No.OS. 499 of 1994 was filed  by the appellants alleging encroachment by the respondents. The suit was  decreed on 30.11.1995. The power of attorney holder and one of the  respondents were the parties of the aforesaid suit. Cyril Lasrado died in the  meantime. A writ petition was filed by the present respondents questioning  correctness of the Tribunal’s order dated 19.10.1978. The same was filed  against Cyril Lasrado though he had died long before. The writ petition was  disposed of by a learned Single Judge by a very strange order. Though the  State of Karnataka and its officials brought to the notice of the learned  Single Judge that Cyril Lasrado had expired, the learned Judge was of the  view that there was no necessity to bring his legal representatives on record.  This was so felt as the learned Judge was of the view that the matter was to  be remitted to the Tribunal and no prejudice would be caused to the legal  representatives. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for  fresh adjudication. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged by  the appellants before the Division Bench by filing a Writ Appeal which by  the impugned judgment was dismissed. The Division Bench only noted the  arguments of the parties and observed as follows:

       "We have heard the learned counsel for the parties  as well as learned Govt. Advocate and perused the  materials placed on record.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

       On consideration, we find no error or illegality in  the order of the learned Single Judge so as to call for any  interference. However, the Tribunal shall hear the  aggrieved parties after giving them opportunity and pass  appropriate orders in accordance with law.

       Writ Appeal is disposed of accordingly."

It has to be noted that the present appellants brought to the notice of  the Division Bench that there had been delay of 138 days in filing the Writ  Appeal as they were not aware of filing the writ petition and its disposal and  when they came to know about it they applied for certified copy and after  obtaining the same, filed the writ appeal. On merits also it was submitted  that after a long lapse of about 19 years the writ petition had been filed  against a dead person and even without issuance of notice the writ petition  was disposed of.  

       The stand of the respondents was that the delay was not properly  explained. In any event, there was no prejudice caused by non-issuance of  notice.  In essence order of learned Single Judge was supported.

       In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted  that this case shows non application of mind by the learned Single Judge as  well as the Division Bench. Without even issuing notice to the legal  representatives the matter was disposed of on a clearly erroneous ground that  no prejudice would be caused if the matter is remanded back, over looking  to the fact that the writ petition was filed after about 19 years without  offering any explanation for the long delay.    It is an accepted fact and is  evident from the order of learned Single Judge itself that the State of  Karnataka and its functionaries had clearly brought on record the fact that  the original applicant Cyril Lasrado had died. It is not understood as to how  and on what basis, learned Single Judge concluded that no prejudice would  be caused to the legal representatives.  The Division Bench did not even  advert to the question as to how substantial justice has been done and why  no interference was called for. The approach of the learned Single Judge and  the Division Bench clearly does not stand to reason.  No reason has been  indicated by the Division Bench.   

       Apparently, overlooking the fact that the writ petition was filed after  about 19 years of the disposal of the matter by the Tribunal, the learned  Single Judge disposed of the matter even without issuance of notice to the  legal representatives. The writ petition was filed after about two decades.  That prima facie made learned Single Judge’s order vulnerable. The  Division Bench without indicating any reason as to how the conclusions of  learned Single Judge were in order dismissed the Writ Appeal.

       Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that substantive justice  has been done.  The Tribunal’s order is prima facie illegal and, therefore,  learned Single Judge felt it desirable to remit the matter to the Tribunal.   Even the Division Bench has directed that the aggrieved parties shall be  given opportunity of being heard and, therefore, there is no violation of the  principles of natural justice.

       The order of learned Single Judge and impugned judgment of the  Division Bench show clearly non-application of mind.   The latter is  practically non-reasoned.  The basic issue raised by the appellants was the  unexplained delay in filing the writ application. Neither Single Judge  considered that aspect before disposal of the writ petition without issuance  of the notice to the present appellants. Though specifically urged and argued,  the Division Bench has not dealt with it and has not recorded any conclusion  on that issue and no reason has been indicated.            Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief,  in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its  order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has  rendered the High Court’s judgment not sustainable.  

Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen  v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All E.R. 1148) observed "The  giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In  Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was  observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are  live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in  question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute  subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the  decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence,  render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate  function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of  the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial  system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the  matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know  why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of  natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a  speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous  with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

       Learned counsel for the respondents in the present appeal submitted  that there were several factors on merits which could not be highlighted  before the learned Single Judge as he chose not to deal with the matter on  merits but directed the matter to be remanded to the Tribunal.  In these  circumstances, we feel that it would be appropriate if the matter is remitted  back to the learned Single Judge for a decision afresh on merits. It would be  open to the parties to place materials in support of their respective stands.  The learned Single Judge, it goes without saying has to dispose of the matter  after taking into account the various materials and evidence already on  record or to be brought by the parties on record.  The order of learned Single  Judge and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal are  accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated with no  order as to costs.