JUDGMENT Saurabh Lavania, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for all the respondents. 2. By means of impugned order dated 02.06.2023, respondent no. 4/the Joint Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District-Ayodhya in exercise of power under Sections 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (in short "Act, 1901"), decided the Case No. 3174/2023 (Computerized Case No. T202304230103174, State v. Mahanth Murali Das), whereby the entry in revenue records favourable to the petitioner has been expunged and the authority has been directed to record the land in the name of State. 3. Vide impugned order dated 01.12.2023, the Revisional Authority in the Act, 1901 namely respondent no. 3/ Member Judicial, Board of Revenue at Lucknow dismissed the Revision No. Rev/1842/2023/Ayodhya (Computerized Case No. R20230423001842) Mahanth Murali Das v. State through Collector District Ayodhya which was instituted under Section 219 of Act, 1901 by the petitioner. 4. Assailing the order dated 01.12.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner says that the order is completely non-speaking order as several grounds were taken in the memo of revision, however, the Revisional Authority/respondent no. 3 without considering the grounds taken in the memo of revision as also without recording reasons thereon dismissed the revision. 5. He further submitted that a perusal of the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 would reflect that the Revisional Authority after going through the relevant portion of the order dated 02.06.2023, against which the revision was filed observed that Sub Divisional Magistrate has rightly recorded the reasons and accordingly, no interference is required. 6. 5. He further submitted that a perusal of the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 would reflect that the Revisional Authority after going through the relevant portion of the order dated 02.06.2023, against which the revision was filed observed that Sub Divisional Magistrate has rightly recorded the reasons and accordingly, no interference is required. 6. The relevant portion of the order dated 01.12.2023, for the sake of convenience is extracted herein-under: ^^5- i=koyh ij miyC/k vfHkys[kksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;k ftlls fofnr gS fd mi ftykf/kdkjh }kjk fnukad 02-06-2023 dks ikfjr vkns'k dk lqlaxr vkns'k fuEuor~ gS%& ^^iz'uxr xkVk la[;k 247@0--645 gs0 egky utwy ljdkj dh gS rFkk mDr xkVs ds vkyk tehankj ldkj cgknqj utwy gS rFkk mDr Hkw&Hkkx ij ljdkj cgknqj utwy dk dCtk gSA mDr 'kklukns'k esa nh x;h O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj utwy Hkwfe dk dksbZ ekrgrnkj ugha gksrk gSA foi{kh egUFk eqjyhnkl dks ckj&ckj vfHkys[kh; lk{; miyC/k ugha djk;k x;k gSA tkap vk[;k fnuakd 29-05-2023 ls Li"V gS fd egUFk eqjyhnkl dk uke tfj;s ojklr ntZ gqvk] tcfd xq: f'k"; ijEijk esa ojklr ntZ fd;s tkus dk dksbZ izko/kku ugha gS rFkk iwoZ ds O;fDr;ksa dk uke fdl vk/kkj ij vfHkys[kksa esa ntZ gqvk] bldk dksbZ lk{; ugha gSA bl izdkj mDr O;fDr;ksa dk uke +qfViw.kZ :i ls ntZ pyk vk jgk gSA foi{kh ds iSjksdkj }kjk fnukad 04-05-2023 o 26-05-2023 dks izLrqr izkFkZuk i= ek= okn dks yafcr j[kus dh fu;r ls fn;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa foi{kh }kjk izLrqr vkifRr o izkFkZuk i= fnukad 04-05-2023 o 26-05-2023 iks"k.kh; u gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS rFkk foi{kh ds uke ekrgrnkj ds :i esa mDr izfof"V =qfViw.kZ :i ls ntZ gS] ftls fujLr djds vkyk [ksoVnkj ljkj cgknqj utwy ds uke ntZ djrs gq, vfHkys[kksa dks nq:Lr fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA vr% mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij foi{kh egUFk eqjyh nkl psyk ckck iwju nkl fuoklh guqekux<+h iV~Vh gfj}kjh v;ks/;k }kjk izLrqr vkifRr iks"k.kh; u gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk rglhynkj lnj dh vk[;k fnukad 10-04-2023 Lohdkj djrs gq, vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ekrgrh xzke dksVjkepUnj] egky utwy ljdkj lu~ 1426 ls 1429 Qlyh esa dzekad 10 xkVk la[;k 247 jdck 0-645 gs0 ij ntZ egUFk eqjyhnkl psyk ckck iwju nkl lk0 guqekux<+h iV~Vh gfj}kjh v;ks/;k dk uke [kkfjt djds vkyk [ksoVnkj ljdkj cgknqj utwy esa ntZ fd;k tk;sA** 6- mijksDr izLrj&5 ds ifj'khyu ls ,slk ifj'khyu ls ,slk ifjyf{kr gksrk gS fd mi ftykf/kdkjh }kjk vius vkns'k fnukad 02-06-2023 esa lHkh rF;ksa dk mYys[k djrs gq, vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa gLr{ksi dk dksbZ volj ugha gSA mi ftykf/kdkjh }kjk vfHkys[kksa esa gqbZ =qfV dks nq:Lr fd;k x;k gSA oSLks Hkh /kkjk 33@39 Hkw&jktLo vf/kfu;e dh dk;Zokgh ljljh dk;Zokgh gS ftlds varxZr LoRo dh ?kks"k.kk ugha dh tkrh gSA bl ifjizs{; esa mi ftykf/kdkjh ds vkns'k 02-06-2023 esa dksbZ rkfRod vfu;ferrk ifjyf{kr ugha gks jgh gSA 7- mijksDr rF;kRed ,oa fof/kd foospuk ds vkyksd esa fuxjkuh xzkárk Lrj ij fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] ftls xzkárk Lrj ij gh fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA voj U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k okil fd;s tk;sA ;fn bl fuxjkuh ds yEcudky esa ;fn dksbZ Lfkxu vkns'k gks rks mls fujLr le>k tk;sA ckn vko';d dk;Zokgh i=koyh nkf[ky&nWQ~rj dh tk;sA 7. Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the fact that the order impugned dated 01.12.2023 is non-speaking. 8. Heard learned counsels for the contesting parties and perused the record. 9. It is a settled principle of law that an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even an administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must be a 'speaking order' and it must not be like the 'inscrutable face of a sphinx'. 10. In judgment passed in the case of Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor and Others reported in (1973) 2 SCC 836 , the Apex Court observed as follows: "28 .... 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 rationale nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. Only in this way can opinion or decisions recorded to be shown to be manifestly just and reasonable." 11. Lord Denning M.R., in the case of Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union reported in (1971) 2 QB 175, 191 : (1971) 1 All ER 1148, observed as under: "the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." 12. Sir Donaldson, in the case of Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree reported in 1974 ICR 120, has observed that "failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice". 13. Observation in the case of Regina v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Khan (Mahmud) reported in 1983 QB 790 : (1983) 2 All ER 420, is as under: "A party appearing before a tribunal is entitled to know, either expressly stated by the tribunal or inferentially stated, what it is to which the tribunal is addressing its mind." 14. 13. Observation in the case of Regina v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Khan (Mahmud) reported in 1983 QB 790 : (1983) 2 All ER 420, is as under: "A party appearing before a tribunal is entitled to know, either expressly stated by the tribunal or inferentially stated, what it is to which the tribunal is addressing its mind." 14. In the case of Travancore Rayon Ltd. v. Union of India reported in (1969) 3 SCC 868 , the Apex Court observed: "The court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds : one, that the party aggrieved in a proceeding before the High Court or this Court has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous; the other, that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power." 15. In the case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. reported in (1970) 1 SCC 764 , the Apex Court observed as follows: "The practice of the executive authority dismissing statutory appeals against orders which prima facie seriously prejudice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of the rule of law. "Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just." 16. In the case of Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate authority has no material on which it may determine whether the facts were properly ascertained, the relevant law was correctly applied and the decision was just." 16. In the case of Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited v. Union of India reported in (1976) 2 SCC 981 while dealing with the exercise of an appellate power by the Central Government under the Sea Customs Act, 1878, it was stated thus: "It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi judicial order must be supported by reasons..." 17. Summarizing the legal position with regard to the necessity to give reasons and pass a speaking order while exercising quasi-judicial functions in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited And Another v. Masood Ahmed Khan And Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 , it was held as follows: "(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone pre judicially. (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 life blood 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. This is virtually the life blood 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. (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. (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 (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (o)In all common law jurisdictions judgments 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". 18. Upon due consideration, this Court finds that the respondent no. 3 has not passed the order in accordance with law with regard to recording of reasons and as such this Court is of the view, without going into the merits and demerits of the case and without recording the findings of the fact, that justice would suffice if interference is made in the order dated 01.12.2023 and the matter is remanded to the respondent no. 3/Board of Revenue at Lucknow to decide the matter afresh after recording reasons on each grounds raised by the petitioner in the memo of revision. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 01.12.2023, certified copy of which is Annexure No. 2 to the petition is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent no. 3 to decide the matter afresh by passing reasoned and speaking order expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.