JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.—This is petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Awadh Narain. He has challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) Chitrakoot, respondent No. 1 dated 26.4.2012. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner’s village was brought under the consolidation operation under Section 4(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953 (for short 1953 ‘Act’). The petitioner was proposed two Chaks comprising of Plot Nos. 2150, 254/3 and 254/4, the total area 1.058 hectares and his second Chak on Plots Nos. 140, 141, 142 and 405, area 1.395 hectares. The details of number of chaks have been mentioned in para 5 of writ petition. The respondent No. 2 is the chak holder No. 598, he was proposed two chaks in the Provisional Consolidation Scheme. This fact is evident from CH Form 23, which has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 3 is the chak holder No. 559, is the real brother of respondent No. 2 and he was originally allotted one third share in plot No. 116. The petitioner was not satisfied with the proposed scheme and he wanted his original holding of plot No. 105. He has filed an objection under Section 20(2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, 1953. The claim of the petitioner was decided by the Consolidation Officer, Mau by order dated 4.3.2011. The claim of the petitioner was partly accepted. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the Settlement Officer in consolidation which was registered as appeal No. 59. The aforesaid appeal was decided and the order of the Consolidation Officer was modified, as the petitioner’s Chak No. 2150 was abolished and the new Chak was carved out. The petitioner was satisfied with the order of the Settlement Officer and as such he did not file revision before respondent No. 1. 4. It is to be noted that the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 4.3.2011 has also altered/modified the second chak of respondent No. 2, which was proposed of Plot Nos. 116, 117 and 118. The respondent No. 2, aggrieved by the said modification, filed an appeal under Section 21(1) of the Act against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 4.3.2012 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. 116, 117 and 118. The respondent No. 2, aggrieved by the said modification, filed an appeal under Section 21(1) of the Act against the order of the Consolidation Officer dated 4.3.2012 before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. His appeal was registered as Appeal No. 130 of 2011. By the same order vis-a-vis 4.3.2011, the Consolidation Officer has also modified the chak of respondent No. 4 of Plot No. 104, 105, 116, 117 and 118. The respondent No. 3 like respondent No. 2 who have been to his brother also preferred an appeal under Section 21(2) before the Settlement Officer. His appeal was registered as Appeal No. 134 of 2011. The Consolidation Officer in the mean time vide another order dated 2.7.2011 in respect of the other tenure holders modified their chaks by the said order. Again the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were affected and their chaks were further modified. However, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not prefer any appeal against the order of Consolidation Officer dated 2.7.2011. 5. The Settlement Officer Consolidation, Chitrakoot dismissed the appeal Nos. 130 of 2011 and 134 of 2011 by his order dated 30.8.2011, preferred by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The copies of the said order has been enclosed by the petitioner as Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition. 6. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation, filed two separate revisions Nos. 192 of 2010-11 and 193 of 2010-11 respectively before the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot on 22.9.2011. 7. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 26.4.2011 allowed the revision Nos. 192 of 2010-11 and 193 of 2010-11 filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 by a common judgment. The said order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is under challenge in the present writ petition. 8. I have heard Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Srinath Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 9. Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent No. 1 has only given his conclusion for setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer. His conclusions are not supported by any reasons. Srinath Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 9. Mr. Arun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the respondent No. 1 has only given his conclusion for setting aside the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer. His conclusions are not supported by any reasons. He has further stated that petitioner was not given proper opportunity by respondent No. 1 and he modified the chaks of the petitioner, which has caused serious prejudice to him. Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to support the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation and also submitted that the petitioner had filed objections before the DDC in both the revisions and, as such, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he was not given opportunity, is not correct. 10. I have considered the rival submissions of the respective parties. The impugned order of Deputy Director of Consolidation would indicate that he has not adverted to the objections raised by the petitioner filed before him in both the revisions. The DDC has not set aside the findings of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer. In the impugned order, the DDC has not considered at all the case of the petitioner and there is only passing reference of the petitioner in the last paragraph of the impugned order. 11. A perusal of the Scheme of Consolidation Holding Act, 1953 would show that the various Sections like 7, 8, 8-A, 9, 9-A, 9-B, 9-C, 10, 19, 19-A and 20 are designed to ensure that the tenure holder may have his compact holdings and certain basic guidelines have been laid down to meet the said objective. In case the Scheme provided under the Act and rule are not followed, it has a consequence of enormous practical implications and it results in undue hardship to the marginal farmers, whose small holdings are fragmented. The unwise and mechanical approach of the consolidation authorities adversely affects the livelihood of the marginal farmers whose only source of livelihood is their small holdings. Therefore any casual approach by the consolidation authorities affect the livelihood of a farmer and it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. 12. The Supreme Court, time and again, has held reasons necessary in support of the conclusions by quasi-judicial, tribunals and even in the administrative orders. Therefore any casual approach by the consolidation authorities affect the livelihood of a farmer and it violates Article 21 of the Constitution. 12. The Supreme Court, time and again, has held reasons necessary in support of the conclusions by quasi-judicial, tribunals and even in the administrative orders. The Supreme Court in the Constitution Bench in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594 , has held that without reason order cannot be sustained, the said law has been followed by the Supreme Court in a series of the decisions. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing Kota v. M/s Shukla and Brothers, 2010 4 SCC 785 , laid down the law in following terms; Para 13....... “A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate ground before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that judgment” Para 24 : “Reason is a very life of law. When the reason of a law once ceases, the law itself generally ceases (Wharton’s Law Lexicon). Such is the significance of the reasoning in any Rule of Law. Giving reasons furthers the cause justice as well as avoid uncertainty.” 14. The supreme Court in the case of Raj Kishore v. State of Bihar, 2003 (11) SCC 519 , has observed that the reason is heart beat of the order. 15. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, I safely arrive at a conclusion that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Chitrakoot is unsustainable and deserve to be quashed. Accordingly, it is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the DDC to decide the matter a fresh after hearing both the parties as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that the Court has not expressed its opinion on the merit of the case. The Deputy Director of Consolidation will not be influenced by any of the observation of this order. 16. Subject to the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Parties will bear their own cost. ——————