JUDGMENT Ran Vijai Singh, J. Heard Sri K.D.Mishra holding brief of Sri Ramanuj Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Manu Singh, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. Through this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 31.1.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Kole District Aligarh and order dated 8.12.2005 passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue in Revision No. 13/2003-04. 3. Vide order dated 31.1.2001, the Sub-Divisional Officer has allowed the restoration application of the respondent gaon sabha and recalled the order dated 17.12.2000, which was passed in a proceeding under Section 161 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 ( in short 'the Act'). Whereas by the subsequent order, revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31.1.2001 has been dismissed. 4. For appreciating the controversy, it would be appropriate to go through the order dated 31.1.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, which is reproduced hereinunder : - ** iquZLFkkiu izkFkZuk i= feu tkfuo xzke lHkk ljdkj }kjk ftyk 'kkldh; vf/koDrk jktLo vyhx (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. (2009) 3 SCC 258 ; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sada Ram & Anr. (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 )." 10. Aggrieved petitioner has filed revision against the aforesaid order but the revisional court too has dismissed the revision. I am of the opinion in absence of recording reasons, for recall of the order dated 17.12.2000 the initial order itself is bad in law and the learned Member Board of Revenue has erred in not interfering with such order. 11. In view of foregoing discussions, the impugned orders dated 31.1.2001 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Kole District Aligarh and order dated 8.12.2005 passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue in Revision No. 13/2003-04 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kole, District Aligarh or if there is some change because of change of villages and tehsil, the court concerned in whose jurisdiction the land falls shall pass fresh order on the restoration application of the gaon sabha after hearing both the sides expeditiously but not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court.. 12. As an interim measure, till the decision is taken on the restoration application filed by the gaon sabha, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on date with respect to the land in dispute and they are further restrained from creating any third party right. 13. It may be clarified that I have neither addressed himself on the maintainability of the restoration application nor its merit and the court concerned is free to pass an independent order in accordance with law on its own merit.