Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Shri Anil Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It is contended that the land purchased by major son of the petitioner from his own resources could not have been included in the land of the petitioner. When he received the notice under Section 10(2) read with Section 29 of the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1973, he raised his objection whereupon the Prescribed Authority recorded a finding while considering Issue Nos. 5 and 6, that the land purchased by Pritam Singh, son of the petitioner from his own resources cannot be included in the holdings of Ram Swaroop Singh and the issues were decided in favour of the petitioner.

3. Learned Commissioner in appeal held the findings recorded by Prescribed Authority on Issues 5 and 6 incorrect and that Court below has not taken decision on merits on the said issue and on this ground he remanded back the matter to the Court below to decide afresh on merits after hearing both the parties. However while holding the findings it has not shown how the findings are incorrect.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner. The appellate authority has committed illegality in setting aside the judgment and order of the Prescribed Authority without referring to any incorrectness in the findings in respect of Issues 5 and 6.

5. Before holding an order or part of order to be incorrect it is incumbent upon the appellate authority to discuss and demonstrate as to how it found the order in appeal incorrect or vitiated on one or other ground. The mere observation that finding recorded by Court below is incorrect makes the order unreasoned and non-speaking and such an order cannot sustain. An order of reman ought not to have been passed in routine course but the appellate Court must consider the matter with more seriousness and unless and until it finds that order of Court below cannot be sustained at all then after demonstrating and discussing the matter it ought to have passed an order. When the entire material on record is available the appellate Court ought not to have remanded the matter but should have decided on its own. An order of remand normally passed when something not evident from record has to be seen.

6. This Court in M/s Nehru Steel Rolling Mills, Muzaffarnagar v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1993 UPTC-407 (Hon’ble M. Katju, J. as His Lordship then was) while considering the correctness of an order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal remanding the matter to Deputy Commissioner observed as under :

“In my opinion a remand order should not be readily made, and it should only be made when for very strong reasons the authority cannot itself dispose of the matter on merits. It seems that these remand orders were made by the authorities merely to get rid of the case so that the authority could avoid going into the matter deeply and deciding the issue once and for all. This kind of attitude is to be deprecated.”

7. Again in M/s Abid Hasan Watch Company, Varanasi v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1995 UPTC 1035, this Court observed in paras 8, 9 and 10 as under :

“(8) The procedural law regarding remand may be stated. It is this that Appeal Court may remand a case if it has been decided on a preliminary point and said judgment of lower Court is set aside in appeal by the Appeal Court. It may again send the case to lower Court with directions in case it is necessary in the interest of justice. Another contingency is where the Court from whose decree an appeal is preferred has disposed of the case otherwise than on a preliminary point and the decree is reversed in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary, the Appellate Court can remand the case to decide specific issue or issues. The Appellate Court may also frame issue or issues for determination after remand. In such a case additional evidence may also be