CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2900 of 2007 PETITIONER: Daya Ram RESPONDENT: Raghunath & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/06/2007 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1751 of 2004)
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned
Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ
petition filed by respondent no.1.
3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as
follows:
On 16.9.1983 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Maharajganj allotted the disputed plot No.1734 bearing area of
0.053 hectare in the name of respondent no.1. The appellant,
a co-villager, noticed that the land was earlier being used as a
passage to Kali Mandir and that respondent no.1 was not
entitled to be allotted any land by the Government. The
procedure prescribed for allotment of land was not followed.
As respondent no.1 was not a landless person, the allotment
in his favour was illegal. Appellant filed a petition before the
District Magistrate, Maharajganj under Section 198(4) of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950 (in short the ‘Act’). The
District Magistrate on receiving the complaint called for the
allotment file and on examination found that due procedure
was not adopted and was done clandestinely. By order dated
7.11.2002, the Collector cancelled the allotment and further
directed that the land be taken over by the Gaon Sabha.
Aggrieved by the said order respondent no.1 had filed a
revision petition before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur, in
which the respondent no.1 took the plea that order passed by
the Collector, Maharajganj, is illegal as there was no report
called from the Lekhpal and no spot inspection was done. The
Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on the ground
that the same was not maintainable. In January 2003, the
respondent no.1 filed a writ petition No.1004/2003 before the
High Court. The primary stand taken was that there was
delay in filing the application under Section 198 (4) of the Act
by the appellant. Initially the High Court issued notice.
Appellant filed his counter-affidavit. Learned Single Judge by
order dated 11.9.2003 by a practically non-reasoned order
allowed the writ petition. The said order is the subject-matter
of challenge.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that since the order is non-reasoned and
no discussion has been made as to why the orders passed by
the Collector and the Commissioner were to be interfered with,
the order cannot be maintained.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on the other
hand submitted that the order does not suffer from any
infirmity.
6. We find that the learned Single Judge has not indicated
any basis for interfering with the orders of the Collector and
the Commissioner. The only reason appears to be by reference
to the Annexure SA5 filed along with the supplementary
affidavit, which shows that the plot bearing no.735 does not
connect in any manner the road which goes to the Kali
Mandir, rather it is on the backside of the road.
7. The basic question was about the eligibility of the
respondent no.1 for allotment of the land. The specific stand
before the authority was that respondent no.1 was not a
landless person and, therefore, he was not entitled to be
allotted any land. There is no reference to this aspect in the
order.
8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest
consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth
its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an
application of its mind, all the more when its order is
amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of
reasons has rendered the High Court’s judgment not
sustainable.
9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All
E.R. 1148) observed “The giving of reasons is one of the
fundamentals of good administration”. In Alexander Machinery
(Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed:
“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”. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The
emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals
the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence,
render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their
appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in
adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an
indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least
sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter
before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can
know why the decision has gone against him. One of the
salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons
for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The
“inscrutable face of a sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a
judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
10. Above being the position, we set aside the impugned
order of the High Court, remit the matter to it for fresh
disposal. We make it clear that we have not expressed any
opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal is allowed to the
aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.
