Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 379 (ALL)

Harpyari v. State of U. P.

2014-02-03

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. 1. Heard Sri Umesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. The petitioner has sought quashing of the orders dated 21.3.2013 passed by Collector Budaun and order dated 22.7.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly Division, Bareilly. So far as the order dated 21.3.2013 is concerned, I am not inclined to interfere in this matter as fee matter has yet to be heard by the Revisional Court. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22.7.2013 passed by fee Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly Division Bareilly (Harpyari v. Prem Pal and others) in Revision No. 76/2012-13 by which fee learned Additional Commissioner has although admitted fee revision filed against fee judgment and order dated 21.3.2013 passed by the Collector Budaun in Case No. 07/2011 (State v. Prem Pal) but rejected fee petitioner's stay application. 3. Through order dated 21.3.2013, the Collector, in a proceeding under section 167 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, has found fee transaction void and passed an order vesting of the land in dispute in State. 4. Aggrieved petitioner has filed revision against the aforesaid order which has been admitted but application for interim protection has been rejected without giving any reason for that. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends feat in case, eviction of the petitioner is not stayed and the petitioner is evicted from fee land in dispute, the revision shall become infructuous. In his further submissions, in these circumstances, order of vesting as well as eviction of the petitioner ought to have been stayed by the Revisional Court pending revision. 6. Learned Standing Counsel states that he does not propose to file counter-affidavit and the writ petition may be decided on its own merit on fee existing fact. 7. I have gone through the impugned order dated 22.7.2013. From the perusal of fee impugned order, it transpires that it is a cryptic order as it do not contain any reason while rejecting the petitioner's application for interim protection. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta and others v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others, (2010) 13 SCC 336 : 2011 (84) ALR 487 (SC) : 2011(97) AIC 18 has observed as under 27. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta and others v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others, (2010) 13 SCC 336 : 2011 (84) ALR 487 (SC) : 2011(97) AIC 18 has observed as under 27. ...The reason is fee heartbeat of every conclusion It introduces clarity in an order and without fee same, fee order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity wife 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 : 2004 (48) ACC 641 (SC) : 2004 (15) AIC 33 State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 : 2004 (49) ACC 671 (SC) : 2004 (19) AIC 42 Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 3 SCC 172 : 2008 (116) FLR 835 (SC) : 2008 (65) AIC 224 Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle and others, (2008) 9 SCC 407 State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, AIR 2008 SC 2026 U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Jag-dish Prasad Gupta, AIR 2009 SC 2328 Ram Phal v. State of Haryana and others, (2009) 3 SCC 258 : 2009 (121) FLR 735 (SC) : 2009 (77) AIC 209 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sada Ram and another, (2009) 4 SCC 422 : 2009 (75) ALR 170 (SC) : 2009 (76) AIC 32 and The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others). AIR 2010 SC 1285 : 2010 (89) AIC 2 (SC) (sic). 9. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court, I find that the order impugned will fall in the category of reasonless order, which cannot be sustained. 10. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.7.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly Division Bareilly (Harpyari v. Prem Pal and others) in Revision No. 76/2012-13 is hereby quashed. 11. 10. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.7.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Bareilly Division Bareilly (Harpyari v. Prem Pal and others) in Revision No. 76/2012-13 is hereby quashed. 11. The learned Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division Bareilly is directed to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's application for interim protection in accordance with law. He shall also make all endeavour to decide revision itself expeditiously. Till the petitioner's stay application is considered afresh, the eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute shall remain stayed. It may be clarified that I have not addressed myself on the merit of the stay application of the petitioner and the Court concerned shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law on its own merit.