'Non-application of mind', Punjab and Haryana High Court raps Rural Development head

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 24

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has rapped the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, for deciding an appeal in an unsatisfactory manner, reflecting “absolute non-application of mind”.

Points of determination not framed

It has been noticed that the Director, Rural Development & Panchayats, Punjab, hasn’t even framed the points of determination in view of the respective claims made by the parties before it in a case. Such a non-speaking order cannot be countenanced in law. — Division Bench, Punjab and Haryana high court

A Division Bench of the High Court also made it clear that a non-speaking order deprived the affected party of an effective opportunity to represent against the same.

The assertion by the Bench of Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Harsh Bunger came on a petition filed by Pargat Singh seeking the quashing of order, dated May 30, 2012, passed by the Collector, Panchayat Lands, Amritsar, under the provisions of the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act. Directions were also sought for quashing another order, dated March 17, 2017, passed by the Appellate Authority — Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, exercising the powers of the Commissioner under the Act.

The Bench, during the course of the hearing, was told that the petitioner was seeking a declaration that he was the owner in possession of a chunk of land at Wadala village in Amritsar district. His counsel contended that the authorities failed to consider his claim in its right perspective and went on to “non-suit” him by passing non-speaking orders. It was further submitted that the order passed by the Director was not only sketchy, but lacked reasoning and was non-speaking.

Taking up the matter, the Bench asserted that it felt after going through the impugned order that the appellate authority failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as an appellate court. The order, dated March 17, 2017, was not only non-speaking and cryptic, but the appeal was decided in an unsatisfactory manner.

The Bench added that it was well settled that a quasi-judicial authority was bound to pass a well-reasoned order after considering the material/evidence on record, besides the facts and circumstances of the case. “It is also noticed that the Director, Rural Development and Panchayats, Punjab, has not even framed the points of determination in view of the respective claims set up by the parties before it. Such a non-speaking order cannot be countenanced in law,” the Bench asserted.

Partly allowing the petition, the Bench quashed the order passed by the Director. Remitting the matter back for deciding the appeal afresh, the Bench asked the Director to take into consideration all relevant documents and other record before passing a speaking/well-reasoned order after framing points of determination arising out of the respective claim of the parties. For the purpose, the Bench set a three-month deadline.