Important Point
Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, High Court should 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.

Headnote:U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950 – Section 198(4) – Allotment of plot in name of respondent 1 – Challenged by appellant on ground that respondent1 not being a landless person was not entitled to allotment – Cancellation of allotment by Collector on a petition filed by appellant u\s 198(4) – Revision petition - Dismissed by Commissioner – Writ petition – Allowed by Single judge by a practically non-reasoned order – Appeal – No indication in order by Single judge as to basis for interfering with orders of Collector and Commissioner – Basic question was about eligibility of respondent 1 for allotment of land – Specific stand before authority was that respondent 1 not being a landless person was not entitled to be allotted any land – However there was no reference to said aspect in order – Reasons introduce clarity in an order - On plainest consideration of justice, 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 - Absence of reasons rendered High Court’s judgment unsustainable - Impugned order of High Court being unsustainable held liable to be set aside and matter remitted back for fresh disposal.(Paras 6,7,8,10)
       Administrative orders – Fundamentals of good administration – Giving of reasons is one of fundamentals of good administration – Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. (Para 9)
       Facts of the case :
       A Plot was allotted herein in the instant case in name of respondent 1. Said allotment was challenged by appellant on ground that respondent1 not being a landless person was not entitled to allotment. On petition filed by appellant u\s 198(4) allotment was canceled by Collector. Revision petition by Respondent was dismissed by Commissioner. Writ petition there against filed by Respondent was allowed by Single judge by a practically non-reasoned order.
       Present appeal has been filed against said order Single Judge.
       Findings of the Court :
       The Court held that there was no indication in order by Single judge as to basis for interfering with orders of Collector and Commissioner. Basic question was about eligibility of respondent 1 for allotment of land. Specific stand before authority was that respondent 1 not being a landless person was not entitled to be allotted any land. However held that there was no reference to said aspect in order. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, 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. Absence of reasons rendered High Court’s judgment unsustainable. Impugned order of High Court being unsustainable held liable to be set aside and matter remitted back for fresh disposal.

JUDGMENT

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,1 [(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,2 [(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 a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 893

2007(5) Supreme 188SUPREME COURT OF INDIA(From Allahabad High Court)Dr. Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.Daya Ram — AppellantversusRaghunath & Ors. — RespondentsAppeal (civil) 2900 of 2007(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1751 of 2004)Decided on : 15-06-2007

Important PointReasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, High Court should 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.

2007(5) Supreme 188
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Daya Ram — Appellant
versus
Raghunath & Ors. — Respondents
Appeal (civil) 2900 of 2007
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1751 of 2004)
Decided on : 15-06-2007

Important Point
Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, High Court should 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.