Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 571 (ALL)

Asharam v. Deputy Director of Consolidation

2003-03-13

S.N.SRIVASTAVA

body2003
S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) SUBJECT-MATTER of impugnment in the present petition is judgment dated 17. 12. 2002 passed by the Deputy Director, Consolidation thereby revision preferred by the respondent No. 2 was allowed to the detriment of the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE controversy in the present petition has its genesis in plot No. 491 which, it is alleged, was the original holding of the petitioners on which petitioner No. 1 installed the tube-well, the only source of irrigation to their crops. The petitioners were sought to be divested of their original holding in the provisional scheme formulated by the Assistant Consolidation Officer as a result of which, they invoked the procedure of Section 20 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and filed objections. It is submitted by the petitioners that point was brought home to the consolidation Officer but in the ultimate analysis, his decision leaned in favour of the respondent No. 2. Consequent upon this, the petitioners went up in appeal before the Settlement officer, Consolidation who by means of his order dated 14. 11. 2002 restored his tube-well in his original holding. At this stage, the respondent No. 2 preferred a revision before the Deputy director, Consolidation, who by means of his order dated 17. 12. 2002, upturned the order of the settlement Officer, Consolidation and upheld the arrangement made at the level of the consolidation Officer. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Sri Hari Om Khare, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party proposed not to file counter-affidavit and sought this Court to dispense with the requirement of filing counter-affidavit and to decide the petition finally. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not demur to it and hence, the petition is disposed of finally on the basis of the facts on record and upon regard being had to the submissions canvassed across the bar. The learned counsel for the petitioners did not demur to it and hence, the petition is disposed of finally on the basis of the facts on record and upon regard being had to the submissions canvassed across the bar. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 2 was the transferee of the land from his brother and cannot claim any interest in the tube-well which had been installed by the petitioner No. 1, The main thrust of the argument was that the Deputy Director, consolidation has passed the impugned judgment mechanically which does not wear any appearance of application of mind to the facts most material and vital to the appreciation of the controversy Involved in the petition. In opposition, the learned counsel representing the contesting respondent contended that the order was rightly passed and it was made in accordance with law. He tried to lend Justification to the impugned order stating that it would be borne out from the order that the Deputy Director, Consolidation applied his mind though he preferred brevity in the matter of discussion of the rival claims in his judgment. ( 5 ) TO all appearance, the impugned judgment seems to have been given in a very casual manner and does not have the same fullness as a judgment in law should be, thereby disclosing logical sequence of cause and effect and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be given the appearance of a judgment informed with reasons inasmuch as it indicates neither the appreciation of the facts of the case nor of the law applicable which would have bearing upon the right decision of the case. I am constrained to observe that it has become more of a rule in most of the orders being passed by consolidation courts than exception not to record reasons and dispose of the matter in a manner jettisoning all the norms of judicial discipline to the winds. This approach is doing more detriment to the cause of justice than to upbear the alms and objects as contemplated in the act. Here, for edification of consolidation authorities, it may be useful to underline the importance of giving reasons. The, requirement of recording reasons for decision is intended to ensure fairness in the administration of justice. This approach is doing more detriment to the cause of justice than to upbear the alms and objects as contemplated in the act. Here, for edification of consolidation authorities, it may be useful to underline the importance of giving reasons. The, requirement of recording reasons for decision is intended to ensure fairness in the administration of justice. Firstly, when reasons are given, it develops the reasoning process of the adjudicating authority and inculcates in him a sense of fairness. The authorities should bear in mind that if his decision does not have a rational relation with the facts and the law of the case and does not disclose a logical sequence of cause and effect, it may be nullified or in any case, criticised and it may lead to their falling prey to arbitrariness. Secondly, a reasoned decision inspires confidence in the mind of the affected party that justice has not been denied to him. Thirdly, it helps to strengthen the confidence of the public generally in the fairness of the administration of justice. Such confidence is imperative for the growth of an orderly and legal adjustment of the competing claims of the litigant public. Fourthly, if no reasons are given, the scope of judicial review becomes nominal. No court, exercising powers of appeal, revision, review or reference, can effectively consider the legality and propriety of the impugned order unless reasons for its making are disclosed. Finally, recording of reasons imports certainly in the body of law. It has been consistently held that the right of a party to know the reasons for the decision of the quasi-judicial authorities is sanctified by the principles of natural Justice. If principles of natural justice are not observed and reasons are not recorded, it would Invest an authority with an arbitrary power to pronounce judgments according to his whims and not according to law. It is also necessary in order to enable the High Court in its judicial review to supervise effectively the work of the courts to give reasons so that the High court can say that the lower court has done its duty properly. The High Court can decide the correctness of the decision only when it has been so recorded as to enable it to appreciate the exact finding. The High Court can decide the correctness of the decision only when it has been so recorded as to enable it to appreciate the exact finding. Secondly, the party that has adduced evidence must have some satisfaction that the lower court has really decided as to whether such evidence should be believed or not. Finally, the general principles applicable to all courts shall not be overlooked. It should be borne in mind that the fundamental principles stressed for administration of justice in our country is that the Court should exercise its power in public. The object of this principle is to ensure that decisions are not arbitrary. If no reasons are given, neither the people nor the litigant parties can be intelligible to those who try to follow them. ( 6 ) REVERTING to the present case, the judgment rendered by the Deputy Director, Consolidation can well be said to be a cryptic judgment inasmuch as it is neither informed with reasons nor does it contain appreciation of rival claims of the parties. It has not been disputed that the plot in question was the original holding of the petitioners on which existed a tube-well installed by petitioner No. 1 and what weighed with the Deputy Director, Consolidation to allot tube-well of the petitioner to her or to hold that the demand of the respondent No. 2 was genuine, has not been discussed nor does the judgment contain discussion of rival contentions and all what has been enumerated in the judgment is that he heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival claims. I would not shrink from observing that Deputy Director, consolidation is a revisional authority and he is expected to render a reasoned judgment inasmuch as a reasoned decision acquires precedent value, which would be followed by authorities subordinate to him. ( 7 ) IN the above conspectus, I hold that the judgment rendered by the Deputy Director, consolidation does not contain any finding or appreciation of rival contentions nor does it embody any discussion of how he converged to the conclusion that the demand of the respondent no. 2 was genuine and in the circumstances, it cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the deputy Director, Consolidation, dated 17. 12. 2002 is quashed. 2 was genuine and in the circumstances, it cannot be sustained. ( 8 ) IN the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the deputy Director, Consolidation, dated 17. 12. 2002 is quashed. The matter may be relegated to the deputy Director, Consolidation, who shall decide the matter afresh after scanning of merits in accordance with law and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties. It is further directed that the Deputy Director, Consolidation, shall assign reasons after appreciation of the facts and rival contentions of the parties. Let a copy of this judgment be despatched to the Director, Consolidation and also the Principal (Revenue) Secretary, U. P. Shasan, Lucknow, for being circulated to all concerned for their edification and for compliance with the directions embodied in this judgment. . .