JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Order on the Application ( C.M.Application No.IA/4/2023) for Amendment of the Writ Petition Objection field today against the application for amendment is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he does not want to press this application and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 3. To the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel for the side opposite have no objection. 4. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as not pressed. Order on Petition 5. Heard. 6. Present petition has been filed for the following main relief:- "(i) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order, dated 07.01.2022, passed by the learned Tehsildar-Sadar, Lucknow in Case No.12181 of 2022, (Computerized Case No.T202110460212181), under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the petition; (ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order, dated 10.06.2022, passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow in Appeal No. 4624 of 2022 (Computerized Case No.T202210460204624), under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition; (iii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order, dated 22.08.2022, passed by the learned Court of Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in Case No.REV/1627/2022/Lucknow (Computerized Case No.R20221046001627), as contained in Annexure No.3 to the writ petition." 7. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner availed the remedy provided under Section 210 of the Code of 2006 by filing the revision challenging the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the respondent No.3-Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, Lucknow in Case No.12181 of 2022, under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") as also the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, Lucknow in Appeal No. 4624 of 2022, under Section 35(2) of the Act of 2006, which relate to mutation in the revenue records and being so, the revisional authority i.e. respondent No.1-Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow was under obligation to pass reasoned and speaking order, however, the respondent No.1 vide its order dated 22.08.2022 dismissed the revision i.e. Case No.REV/1627/2022/ Lucknow by a non-speaking order. 8. 8. For coming to the conclusion that the orders passed the authorities i.e. respondent No.3 and respondent No.2 dated 07.01.2022 and 10.06.2022, respectively, are just and proper and no reason has been assigned. As such, the orders impugned herein are unjustified. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. Sh.Masood Ahmed Khan & Others; reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 . The relevant para 47 reads as under:- "47.Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber- stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] .) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgements play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"." 9. Sri Triloki Nath Yadav, Advocate along with Sri Raj Narain, learned counsel for the side opposite, opposing the present petition for the reliefs sought, stated that the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the respondent No.3 and the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 are reasoned and speaking orders and after considering the facts of the case and the observations made by the authorities concerned, respondent No.1 recorded a finding that both the orders are not liable to be interfered with. As such, no interference is required in the matter. 10. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including the orders impugned herein. 11. As such, no interference is required in the matter. 10. Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records including the orders impugned herein. 11. It would be apt to refer here that learned counsel for the parties also pointed out several aspects of the case in relation to the orders impugned herein, however, this Court is of the view that on the factual aspects of the case no observation is required in the present case at this stage. 12. A perusal of the order of the respondent No.1, dated 22.08.2022 itself shows that the same is non-speaking/un- reasoned order. The order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 is extracted here-in-under:- 13. It is settled principle of law that the reasons are the heartbeats of the order and each order should have been passed containing a reason for coming to the conclusion. It is also trite law that even the Administrative authorities are required to pass reasoned and speaking order. 14. From the aforesaid quoted portion of the order dated 22.08.2022, it is crystal clear that for coming to the conclusion, the respondent No.1 has not recorded any reason. 15. Considering the aforesaid as also the law on the issue, the order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the revisional authority i.e. respondent No.1-Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow to decide the matter afresh by speaking and reasoned order. The respondent No.1 shall make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings of the case expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. 16. Parties to the litigation before this Court have undertaken that they would not take any adjournment before respondent No.1, as such, respondent No.1 shall not grant any adjournment to the parties to the litigation.