ORDER
S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. Impugned herein are the Judgments dated 6.9.2003 and 7.7.2002, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation and Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Jaunpur respectively.
2. I have heard Sri R. S. Verma, for the petitioner and Sri K. C. K. Srivastava, appearing for the opposite parties. Both the counsel conjoined to urge that the matter may be decided at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners preferred not to file rejoinder-affidavit and submitted that the matter may be decided on the basis of respective contentions made across the bar and averments as embodied in the writ petition and counter-affidavit. In the above perspective, I feel inclined to decide the matter at the very threshold.
3. The petition has been instituted by the petitioner with the threadbare theme that the chaks allotted at the stage of Assistant Consolidation Officer included chaks from his original holding and at subsequent stages, he has been completely denuded of chafes in his original holding and instead, he has been assigned Udan chak. The petitioner had his original holding on chak Nos. 842/1, 842/2 and 842/3. The Assistant Consolidation Officer had carved out chafes in a manner, which included his original holding. The Consolidation Officer Improved upon the proposal by taking out some plots from the original holding of the petitioner and re-assigning chafe on holdings other than his original holdings. At the stage of Settlement Officer of Consolidation his original holding further dwindled and the petitioner was assigned chafes on holding No. 755. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner and opposite parties preferred their respective revisions. The Deputy Director of Consolidation dismissed petitioner’s revision and allowed the revision preferred by opposite parties. While allowing revision of the opposite parties, the Deputy Director of Consolidation completely denuded petitioner of his residuary chaks on his original holding. It is in the above perspective that the present petition has come to be filed.
4. The main stay of petitioner’s argument revolves round the ground that the orders impugned are bereft of reasons and suffer from non-application of mind verging on violation of the conditions contained in Section 19 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.
5. The quintessence of the principles is that every tenure holder should be allotted compact area at the place where he holds largest part of his holding and next is that the tenure holder, as far as possible, should be allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement together with the area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plot originally held by him and that every tenure holder, as far as possible, would be allotted chafe In conformity with the process of rectangulation. In the light of the above principles, it is necessary for the consolidation authorities to sufficiently indicate that they were alive to the requirements as postulated in Section 19 (1) of the Act and any departure can be made in exceptional circumstances and that such departure must be based on strong reasons. I have searched the entire impugned orders and I have not come across any specific reasons for depriving the petitioners of his original holding and assigning chafes on holdings other than his original holdings. It has been repeatedly observed that the orders passed in Consolidation proceedings must be informed with reasons inasmuch as reasons provide flesh to the bare bone and it fosters confidence of the litigant public that their view points have been noticed. Secondly, the authority concerned should bear in mind that if no reasons are given, the scope of judicial review becomes nominal and the Court cannot effectively consider the legality and propriety of the impugned order unless reasons for its making are disclosed. The right of a party to know the reasons for the decision of the quasi-judicial authorities is sanctified by the principles of natural Justice. In case the order is not informed with reasons, It would litter the mind of the litigant public with suspicion that the authority has approached the matter recklessly without application of mind.
6. In the above conspectus, the authorities having assigned no reasons for their conclusions in their respective orders, the orders impugned herein cannot be sustained and in consequence the Impugned order dated 6.9.2003, is quashed accordingly and the matter is relegated to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for decision afresh after affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties and upon regard being had to the conditions contained in Section 19 (1) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is expected that the authority concerned shall take the matter to some finality within a period not exceeding two months.
7. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed in terms of the above.
