Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2377 (ALL)

Chiller v. D. D. C.

2019-10-18

JAHANGIR JAMSHED MUNIR

body2019
ORDER : Jahangir Jamshed Munir, J. 1. A perusal of the office report dated 24.04.2015 shows that notices issued to respondent Nos. 3/1/1 to 3/1/3, 3/2/1 to 3/2/3 and 3/3 by RPAD fixing 29.04.2015, have led to a postal return where neither acknowledgment has been received nor the undelivered covers. As such, service upon the aforesaid respondents is deemed sufficient and is held good. So far as respondent Nos. 4/1, 4/2/1, 4/3, 5/1 and 5/2 are concerned, Sri Dinesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on their behalf. However, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of these respondents by him. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of any other respondent as well. 2. This writ petition is of the year 1985. When the case is called on, no one appears on behalf of any of the private respondents. Sri R.B. Ram, learned Standing Counsel is present on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 31.05.1985 and 20.10.1984, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria, and the Consolidation Officer (Record Operations), Deoria respectively. 4. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.B. Ram, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 5. The case of the petitioner is that objections under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, were filed during consolidation operations that commenced on publication of a notification under Section 4 of the said Act, on 30.09.1981. 6. The Respondents second set, now represented by respondent Nos. 3/1/1 to 3/1/3, 3/2/1 to 3/2/3 and 3/3, were recorded in the basic year relative to the said consolidation operations. The petitioner's case taken in the objections was that the land in dispute which comprises Gata No. 440/-21 and Gata No. 1129/-20 of Khata No. 308, situate in village Neehuli Sonbhali, Tehsil Hata, District Deoria, had been recorded in the petitioner's name, much before the date of vesting. It was urged that fraudulently and fictitiously the name of the respondent second set was got recorded in the revenue records. This was so because the said respondents took advantage of the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are illiterate and rustic villagers, whereas petitioner No. 3 Jagat was in service in the District of West Champaran (Bihar). It was urged that fraudulently and fictitiously the name of the respondent second set was got recorded in the revenue records. This was so because the said respondents took advantage of the fact that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are illiterate and rustic villagers, whereas petitioner No. 3 Jagat was in service in the District of West Champaran (Bihar). Since he was not available in the village during the consolidation operations, the petitioners could not know about the fictitious entry, secured by the respondent second set during the consolidation operations to bring in their names. When Jagat came over to his village, he learnt of the wrong entry in favour of the respondent second set. This was discovered at the time when measurements of chak was in progress in the village. It is claimed that it was on account of the aforesaid forged entry that petitioner No. 3, Jagat (since deceased) came to know about the fraud played upon the petitioners. It was then that the third petitioner got objections filed under Section 9-A(2) of the Act. It was also pointed out that the petitioners are in possession over the land in dispute to the extent of their share there and also that the entry in favour of respondent second set is forged and fictitious in the sense that it has been secured without the order of any Competent Authority. The aforesaid objections filed by the petitioners were contested by the respondent second set on grounds, inter alia, that these are time barred. The petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in moving these objections, under Section 9-A(2) of the Act. The Delay Condonation Application was supported by an affidavit of Jagat (deceased petitioner No. 3). It is claimed that in the said affidavit all relevant facts were set out that afford sufficient grounds to condone the delay in bringing objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act. It is also pointed out, as averred in paragraph-5 of the writ petition, that facts asserted in the affidavit filed in support of the Delay Condonation Application, remained unrebutted. Also, in support of the plea for condonation of delay, the petitioners have filed documentary evidence appended to the affidavit, in support of the application. The Consolidation Officer, vide his order dated 20.10.1984, declined to condone the delay in preferring the objections. Also, in support of the plea for condonation of delay, the petitioners have filed documentary evidence appended to the affidavit, in support of the application. The Consolidation Officer, vide his order dated 20.10.1984, declined to condone the delay in preferring the objections. He rejected the Delay Condonation Application, and, the Objections, as barred by time. The petitioners filed a Revision, challenging the order dated 20.10.1984 to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, which came to be dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on manifestly illegal grounds and misplaced facts, by an order dated 31.05.1985. It has been averred in paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition that at the time of filing the writ petition, petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were aged 86 years, 83 years, 68 years, respectively. It has also been averred that the petitioner, as well the respondent second set, are absolutely illiterate, whereas amongst the original parties to this writ petition, petitioner No. 3 and respondent No. 5 alone were literates, to the extent that they could sign their names. In consequence of this handicap, the petitioners could not acquire knowledge regarding the fictitious entries of their rights in the records maintained by respondent second set, over the land in dispute. Objections were brought as soon as the fraud was detected by the third respondent, on a visit to his native village. 7. This Court has perused the order passed by the Chakbandi Officer. This Court constrained to say that the order is outrageously cryptic. It reads thus: “20 x-84 i{kks dks lqukA fpYyj vkfn us Hkw UkŒ440&29] 9920&20 ds ckjs es nj[kkLr oS:u fe;kn fn;k gSA vkSj fe;kn dk ykHk pkgrs gSA nsjh dk dksbZ equkflc tokc ugha fn;k gS nj[kkLr 5&8&83 dks nh xbZ gSA tks nks lky dh nsjh dk equkflc tokc ugha fn;k gSA vkns'k nj[kkLr fnukad 5&8&83 oS:u fe;kn gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;kA veynjken nkf[ky nrj gksA gŒ vLi"V lhŒvksŒ 20&10&85 8. This order, when challenged in Revision, has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.05.1985, already mentioned. The said order too has been perused by the Court. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, while writing the impugned order has scripted some three and a half pages. This order, when challenged in Revision, has been affirmed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 31.05.1985, already mentioned. The said order too has been perused by the Court. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, while writing the impugned order has scripted some three and a half pages. A reading of the order, however, shows that the major part of it has been occupied by a narration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. The findings of the Deputy Director of Consolidation are almost as cryptic as the Consolidation Officer himself. They have been cast in a more respectable mould and nothing more. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has said nothing more than that, that he finds on a perusal of records that the explanation for the delay offered by the petitioner is not satisfactory and that the Consolidation Officer committed no error in declining to condone the delay. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has not said a word by way of his reasons, as to why he thinks that the explanation offered by the petitioner is not good. This is precisely what the Consolidation Officer has done. 9. It is well settled that in any order that determines the rights of parties or partake of a judicial character or a quasi judicial one, reasons should be given, howsoever, briefly for the conclusion reached. It is these reasons that serve as the connecting links between the mind of the decision maker and the conclusions reached by him. It is also these reasons that enable a Court of Superior jurisdiction to judge whether the decision maker below was right or wrong in his conclusions. Conclusions bereft of reasons deprive a Court of superior jurisdiction of the means to know whether the decision has indeed proceeded on considerations valid on facts and law. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Sant Lal Gupta & Ors., Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 336 , wherein it has been held: "27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial orders must be supported by reasons recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 336 , wherein it has been held: "27. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial orders must be supported by reasons recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. "3. ... The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind." [Ed.: As observed in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal, (2004) 5 SCC 573 , p. 576, para 3.] 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 the 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. Recording of reasons is the 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, (2004) 5 SCC 568 ; State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal: (2004) 5 SCC 573 ; Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of U.P. (2008) 3 SCC 172 ; SAIL v. STO, (2008) 9 SCC 407 ; State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, (2008) 11 SCC 205 ; U.P. SRTC v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, (2009) 12 SCC 609 ; Ram Phal v. State of Haryana, (2009) 3 SCC 258 ; State of H.P. v. Sada Ram, (2009) 4 SCC 422 ; and Victoria Memorial Hall v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity (2010) 3 SCC 732 ." 10. In view of what has been said above, this Court finds that the impugned orders passed by the two Authorities below cannot be sustained, and are liable to be quashed, with a remit of the matter to the Consolidation Officer to decide the Delay Condonation Application afresh, and subject to the outcome there, to deal with the objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act. 11. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 12. The impugned orders dated 31.05.1985 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Deoria in Revision No. 16 under Section 48 U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, Chiller and others Vs. Shiv Poojan and others and the order dated 20.10.1984, passed by the Consolidation Officer (Record Operations) Hata, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. The Consolidation Officer concerned shall proceed to determine the delay condonation matter afresh, after hearing all parties concerned, and subject to the decision on the said objections will proceed to deal with the objections under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, also in accordance with law, after hearing all parties concerned, bearing in mind what has been said in the body of this judgment. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.