IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Mahanth Murali Das - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
WRIT B NO. 6 OF 2024.
Decided On : 08-01-2024
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. The relevant portion of the order dated 01.12.2023, for the sake of convenience is extracted herein-under:
^^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
Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. (1970) 1 SCC 764
Regina v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal Ex parte Khan (Mahmud) 1983 QB 790 : (1983) 2 All ER 420
Siemens Engineering & Manufacturing Co. of India Limited v. Union of India (1976) 2 SCC 981
A quasi-judicial authority must provide a reasoned order to ensure transparency and accountability in decision-making.
A mere recital of vague reasons would not be sufficient nor a matter like the present one where the aggrieved party has a right to know the reasons for the decision being taken either for or against ....
Quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasoned and speaking orders to ensure transparency and prevent arbitrary decision-making.
It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons ....
Quasi-judicial authorities must record detailed reasons for decisions, ensuring procedural fairness and preventing arbitrary action.
Point of Law : It is no doubt true that if there was any provision to be found in impugned Act which prevented the Wage Board from giving reasons for its decision, it might be construed to mean that ....
The main legal point established is the requirement for providing reasons for decisions, as it is essential for clarity and fairness in the judicial process.
Administrative authorities must provide clear reasons for decisions affecting rights to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.