Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 621 (ALL)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of U. P. and Others

2014-02-19

RAN VIJAI SINGH

body2014
Ran Vijai Singh,J. Heard Sri Gaurav Sisodia, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. Through this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.12.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly in Appeal No. 12 of 2013-14 (Rajesh Kumar and others vs. Lakshman Prasad and others) to the extent of rejection of the stay application of the petitioner. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 4 has filed a suit under section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. This suit was decreed on 19.11.2013 and he was declared Bhumidhar. Challenging the aforesaid order an appeal has been filed by the petitioner, which has been entertained but application for interim protection has been rejected. For appreciation the order dated 21.12.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner is reproduced hereunder: "lquk x;k A LFkxu ds I;kZIr vk/kkj u gksus ds dkj.k LFkxu izkFkZuk irz fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vihy okLrs lquokbZ gsrq fnukad 22&01&2014 dks is'k gksA voj U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k eaxk;k tk, izfri{khx.k ij rkehyk iw.kZ djkbZ tk;sA" 4. From the perusal of the order it is apparent that while rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of interim protection learned Commissioner has not recorded any reason. Since the appeal was filed against the decree operating against the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it was incumbent upon the court below to grant an interim protection in view of the law laid down in Mool Chand Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Mills (1983 U.P.LBEC 519) as non granting of an interim protection would lead to serious prejudice to the petitioner. 5. The Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta and others vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others, (2010) 13 SCC 336 , following observation has been made: "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. 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. (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 )." 6. In view of foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.12.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Bareilly Division, Bareilly in Appeal No. 12 of 2013-14 (Rajesh Kumar and others vs. Lakshman Prasad and others) is hereby quashed. The Additional Commissioner is directed to consider the stay application of the petitioners afresh and pass a reasoned order thereon.Till the petitioners' stay application is considered, neither any third party right shall be created nor the nature of the land shall be changed by the parties. 7. It may be clarified that I have not addressed myself on the merit of the stay application. It is in the sole domain of the learned Member Board of Revenue to pass an independent order in accordance with law. _________________