JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh,J.: - Heard Sri S.G. Husnain learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Govind Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri J.J.Munir, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.4.2014 passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue to the extent it has set aside the previous order dated 27.8.2012 (wrongly mentioned as 23.8.2012 therein). 3. The facts giving rise to this case are that the respondents no. 3 to 6 filed an application under Section 34 of U.P.Land Revenue Act, 1901 seeking mutation of their names over the property of one Manzoor Ahmed the opposite party in the aforesaid case. The case was numbered as 94/126/181/257/1451 (Manzar Ali Vs. Manzoor Ahmed). The aforesaid application was allowed by the Tehsildar Sagari, District Azamgarh vide order dated 2.7.2012. Challenging the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed Revision No. 2394/LR/2011-12 (Naseebun Nisa Vs. Manzar Ali and others). The revision was entertained and the order impugned was stayed until further orders. Thereafter the revision was admitted and notices were issued on 23.8.2012. The petitioner has brought on record the order-sheet, which indicates that in the matter, various dates were fixed consecutively but no effective order was passed. However, on 11.4.2014, the learned Member Board of Revenue all of sudden has set aside the order dated 23.8.2012 and allowed the amendment application. For appreciation, the order dated 11.4.2014 passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue is reproduced hereinunder : - mHk; i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquk x;kA LFkxu vkns'k fnukWd 27&8&12 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA la'kks/ku izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA okn fnukWd 15&4&14 dks lquokbZ gsrq izLrqr gksA g0&vLi"V ¼Mk0 lw;ZZ izrki falag ½ vkbZ-,-,l- lnL; ¼U;kf;d½ 11&4&14 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no application for vacation of the interim order and the learned Member, for the reason best known to him, has set aside the earlier interim order by fixing another date for hearing. In his submissions, the order impugned is cryptic order and it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. In his submissions, the order impugned is cryptic order and it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. While refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.J.Munir, learned counsel for contesting respondents submits that the revision itself was not maintainable for the reasons that against the order dated 2.7.2012 passed by the Tehsildar, the petitioner has filed an Appeal No. 95 (Naseebun Nisa Vs. Manzar Ali and others) and withdraw the same unconditionally. 6. It is not in dispute in between the parties that the Revision is still pending and the interim order, which was earlier granted, has been set aside/vacated by the learned Member without there being any application for vacating or setting aside the earlier interim order or setting aside the earlier. It would further transpire that the learned Member has set aside the interim order dated 23.8.2012 without assigning any reason which in my opinion will fall in the category of cryptic order . It is well known that an order without reason is like a dead corpus and these kind of orders cannot be sustained in the court's proceedings. 7. The Apex Court in Sant Lal Gupta and others vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others, (2010) 13 SCC 336 has observed as under: - "27.....The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/ unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected. [Vide: State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar AIR 2004 SC 1794 ; State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal & Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 573 ; Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172 ; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407 ; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026 ; U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328 ; Ram Phal v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172 ; Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407 ; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026 ; U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328 ; Ram Phal v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258 ; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422 ; and The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity & Ors., AIR 2010 SC 1285 ). Therefore this kind of order cannot be sustained in the eye of law particularly in the circumstances when the revision is not maintainable. 8. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court with respect to cryptic orders, I am of the opinion that the impugned order also falls in the category of cryptic order, therefore it cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The impugned order dated 11.4.2014 passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue in Revision No. 2394/LR/11-12 (Naseebun Nisa Vs. Manzar Ali and others) is hereby quashed to the extent as prayed for. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The learned Member Board of Revenue is directed to decide the revision itself expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournments to the learned counsel for the parties. In case, adjournment is sought by either of the parties, that may be allowed only after imposing the cost with the direction to deposit the cost by the next date fixed.