JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary learned Advocate assisted by Sri Devesh Kumar Verma, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4-Raja Ram as also Dr. Krishna Singh, learned State Counsel appearing for the State. 2. By means of the present petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the revisional authority/opposite party no.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Sultanpur, whereby the opposite party no. 1 interfered in the order of appellate authority dated 04.12.2022, whereby the appellate authority after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer for adjudicating the case on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation. 3. It would be apt to mention that the opposite party nos. 4 to 8 in the instant petition were revisionists and are relatives and the petitioner was opposite party in the revision in which the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 was passed and taking note of the same and in view of the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to opposite parties no. 5 to 8 is dispensed with. 4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being decided finally at the admission stage. 5. Assailing the impugned order dated 03.01.2023, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that an Appeal No. 420/2018540468000360 was filed along with an application for condonation of delay challenging the order dated 13.11.1995 passed in Case No. 1176 (Raja Ram v. Sita Ram and Others), on the main ground that order dated 13.11.1995 passed on the basis of compromise entered between the parties is unsustainable in the eyes of law as the said compromise was not verified or signed by the Consolidation Officer. Clarifying the same, it is stated that Sita Ram, the father of the petitioner had filed the appeal. 6. He further stated that upon due consideration of the facts as also after taking note of the documents on record, the appellate authority recorded the specific findings while allowing the appeal which is to the effect that Consolidation Officer has not verified the compromise and after recording this findings, the opposite party no. 2 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter a fresh. 2 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter a fresh. The relevant observations of the Appellate Authority in order dated 04.12.2022 are as under:- lqygukek ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 13-11-1995 dk tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS mldh udy izfroknh }kjk izLrqr dh x;h gSA ftlds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd p0v0 }kjk lqygukek rLnhd ugha fd;k x;k tks lqygukek dh udy nh x;h gS ml ij dksbZ frfFk vafdr ugha gSA lqygukek dh vafre ykbu esa fy[kk x;k gS fd p0v0 izFke vesBh esa py jgk okn lhrkjke cuke ljdkj esa p0v0 dh lsok esa mfpr dk;Zokgh gsrq iszf"kr] ;g lqygukek fdl frfFk dks layXu i=koyh gqvk ;g Hkh Li"V ugha gSA lqygukek fu;ekuqlkj gqvk gh ughaA vr,o mlds vk/kkj ij ikfjr vkns'k dk;e ugha j[kk tk ldrk gSA Åij ds foospu ls Li"V gS fd QthZ lqygukek ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k ikfjr gS ftlds fo:) yxHkx 1 o"kZ foyEc ls vihy izLrqr gSA vihydrkZ }kjk foyEc dk tks dkj.k fn;k x;k gS og ;FkkZFkijd gS D;ksafd lqygukek fu;ekuqlkj gqvk gh ughaA vr,o tkudkjh dk u gksuk LokHkkfod gSA izfroknh }kjk dksbZ ,slk rF; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlls ;g Li"V gks lds ds vkyksP; vkns'k dh tkudkjh vihydrkZ dks FkhA ,slh n'kk esa lkjoku U;k; dks vxzlkfjr djus gsrq vkj0Mh0 1986 ist 417 ij iznRr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj nQk 5 fe;kn dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr gSA pwafd izfroknh dk dFku gS fd fookfnr vkjkth la;qDr vk; ls cuk;h x;h gS blfy;s lg[kkrsnkjh ds nkok dks xq.k&nks"k ij ijh{k.k gsrq i=koyh p0v0 dk izR;kofrZr djuk mfpr gSA vkns'k mijksDrkuqlkj fe;kn dk ykHk nsdj vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gSA p0v0 dk vkns'k fnukad 13-11-1995 fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA vk/kkj o"kZ bUnzkt cnLrwj vafdr jgsA bl vkns'k dh veynjken dh tkos i=koyh p0v0 lnj&izFke dks bl funsZ'k ds lkFk izR;kofrZr dh tkrh gS fd vkns'k ds vdauk ds i'pkr p0v0 lg[kkrsnkjh ds nkos dh xq.k&nks"k ij ijh{k.k djds vkns'k ikfjr djsA i{kx.k fnukad 21-12-2022 dks p0v0 lnj&izFke ds U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr gksA i=koyh okn vko';d dk;Zokgh nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA 7. It is further submitted that being aggrieved the private opposite parties 4 to 8 preferred the revision/Case No. 1984/2022 computerized Case No. 202254046800001984 (Raja Ram and Others v. Badri Prasad) under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1953. It is further submitted that being aggrieved the private opposite parties 4 to 8 preferred the revision/Case No. 1984/2022 computerized Case No. 202254046800001984 (Raja Ram and Others v. Badri Prasad) under Section 48(1) of the Act of 1953. The Revisional Authority-opposite party No.1 allowed the revision vide impugned order dated 03.01.2023 and interfered in the order of remand of appellate authority dated 14.12.2022 that too without reversing the findings of the Appellate Authority which is to the effect that the compromise does not contain the signature of the Consolidation Officer, as such, the same could not be acted upon and no order could have been passed based upon the same. In this regard, he has drawn attention of this Court on the relevant observations of the order of the Revisional Authority dated 03.01.2003 which on reproduction reads as under:- " D;ksafd le>kSrs ,oa pdcUnh vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k fnukad 13-11-95 ds vkns'k dh izfr i=koyh ij miyC/k djk;h x;h gSA mDr le>kSrs ds vuqlkj lhrkjke }kjk vius lxs Hkkb;ksa dk uke vafdr djkus ckcr le>kSrk fd;k x;k Fkk lhrkjke dk fu'kkuh vaxwBk mlds vf/koDrk }kjk igpku fd;k x;k FkkA cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh }kjk okn ckgqY; dks c<+kok nsus gsrq okn dks pdcUnh vf/kdkjh dks izR;kofrZr fd;k x;k gSA tks mfpr ugha gSA Qyr% fuxjkuh Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA " 8. It is further submitted that the Revisional Authority ought to have recorded the specific findings after recording reasons for conclusion, on the basis of the record available before it, that compromise was duly verified by the Consolidation Officer as the same was relevant to upset the order of the Appellate Authority, which is the authority empowered to consider the fact and law both and the scope of revisional authority is limited. In these circumstances, the indulgence of this Court is required. 9. Sri Shatrudhan Chaudhari, learned counsel for the side opposite opposing the present petition and supporting the order impugned dated 03.01.2023 submitted that the proper compromise was entered into between the parties on 13.11.1995 and that compromise was thereafter was written and signed by the parties and thereafter, the parties were also identified by their respective advocates and the written compromise was placed before the Consolidation Officer concerned on 13.11.1995 itself, who verified the compromise and based upon the said compromise the order dated 13.11.1995 was passed. As such, the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority were itself perverse and being so the revision was filed challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 14.12.2022 and based upon the material available before the Revisional Authority the order impugned dated 03.01.2023 was passed. Accordingly, the order impugned is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. 10. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. Upon due consideration particularly the observations of the Appellate Authority as also the observations of the Revisional Authority, quoted here-in-above, in the order(s) dated 14.12.2022 and 03.01.2023, respectively, it is apparent that the Revisional Authority has not recorded any reason to upset or reverse the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority. The Revisional Authority for the purposes of interfering in the order of the Appellate Authority date 14.12.2022 only stated that the thumb impression of one Sita Ram was duly identified by the Advocate engaged by Sita Ram. In regard to other parties, to the compromise as also in relation to the verification by the Consolidation Officer, the Revisional Authority has not made any observation. 12. As per settled principle, the reasons should be recorded in the order having civil consequence. 13. The recording of reasons are necessary. It is well known that "conclusions" and "reasons" are two different things and reasons must show mental exercise of authorities in arriving at a particular conclusion. 14. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union, reported in 1971 (1) AIIER 1148, it was held that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. 15. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtress, reported in 1974 (4) IRC 120 (NIRC) it was observed that "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. 16. In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Kapoor (1973) 2 SCC 836 , as under: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached." 17. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached." 17. The Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. AIR 1981 SC 1915 said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. They should reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinions or decisions recorded be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable" 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 , has explained that reasons are necessary links between the facts and the findings recorded in the administrative orders, which visit a party with evil civil consequences. In absence of reasons such an order cannot be permitted to stand. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and others, (2003) 11 SCC 519 , has held that reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. 20. In Mc Dermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd. & Ors. (2006) 11 SCC 181 Apex Court referring to Bachawat's Law of Arbitration and Conciliation, 4th Edn., pp. 855-56 in para 56 said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions..." 21. The Apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 referring to the judgment in Mohan Lal Capoor (supra) in para 23 said: "Such reasons must disclose how mind was applied to the subject-matter for a decision regardless of the fact whether such a decision is purely administrative or quasi-judicial. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two." 22. The Apex Court also in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. This Court held that the reasons in such context would mean the link between materials which are considered and the conclusions which are reached. Reasons must reveal a rational nexus between the two." 22. The Apex Court also in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Anr. JT 2010 (10) SC 26 in para 68 referring to the judgment in the case of Gurdial Singh Fijji (supra) said: "Reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. By practice adopted in all courts and by virtue of judgemade law, the concept of reasoned judgment has become an indispensable part of basic rule of law and in fact, is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. Clarity of thoughts leads to clarity of vision and therefore, proper reasoning is foundation of a just and fair decision." 23. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 03.01.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Revisional Authority to pass an order a fresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and taking note of the entire material available on record. 24. It is expected by the Revisional Authority that the proceeding of the case in issue, shall be concluded within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, placed before it.