Badri Prasad vs Deputy Director Consolidation, Sultanpur

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(All) 2615

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
Badri Prasad - Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Director Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others - Respondents
WRIT B NO. 36 OF 2023.
Decided On : 18-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner: Alok Kr. Misra.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Chaudhary Shatrughan, Devesh Kumar Verma.

Headnote:(A) Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 48 - Writ petition challenging the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation that interfered with the appellate authority's remand order - The appellate authority found the compromise unsustainable due to lack of verification by the Consolidation Officer. (Paras 2, 11, 23)

(B) Reasons for administrative decisions - Recording of reasons is fundamental, as underlined in settled principles and judicial precedents. Failure to record reasons amounts to denial of justice and renders decisions unsustainable. (Paras 12-20)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the order from the revisional authority that improperly reversed an appellate authority's remand to evaluate a compromise that was not verified. The appellate authority found the necessity for proper verification of compromise, which the Deputy Director overlooked.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the order of the Deputy Director and remanded the case for fresh order, ensuring proper opportunity for both parties to be heard.

Issues: Whether the revisional authority could interfere with the appellate authority's findings without adequate reasoning; the necessity of recording reasons in administrative orders.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that administrative decisions must be supported by recorded reasons to prevent arbitrary action. Lack of sufficient justification to overturn the appellate authority's decision rendered the Deputy Director's order invalid.

Result: Petition allowed; order dated 03.01.2023 set aside.

Table of Content
1. challenge to the revisional authority's order (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. contentions regarding compromise verification (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. lack of reasoning in judicial decisions (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. importance of reasons in court orders (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
5. order setting aside previous decision and remanding case (Para 23 , 24)

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Heard Sri Alok Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary learned Advocate assisted by Sri Devesh Kumar Verma, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party no. 4-Raja Ram as also Dr. Krishna Singh, learned State Counsel appearing for the State.

2. By means of the present petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the revisional authority/opposite party no.1- Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Sultanpur, whereby the opposite party no. 1 interfered in the order of appellate authority dated 04.12.2022, whereby the appellate authority after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, remanded back the matter to the Consolidation Officer for adjudicating the case on merits after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties to the litigation.

3. It would be apt to mention that the opposite party nos. 4 to 8 in the instant petition were revisionists and are relatives and the petitioner was opposite party in the revision in which the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 was passed and taking note of the same and in view of the order proposed to be passed issuance of notice to opposite parties no. 5 to 8 is dispensed with.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being decided finally at the admission stage.

5. Assailing the impugned order dated 03.01.2023, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that an Appeal No. 420/2018540468000360 was filed along with an application for condonation of delay challenging the order dated 13.11.1995 passed in Case No. 1176 (Raja Ram v. Sita Ram and Others), on the main ground that order dated 13.11.1995 passed on the basis of compromise entered between the parties is unsustainable in the eyes of law as the said compromise was not verified or signed by the Consolidation Officer. Clarifying the same, it is stated that Sita Ram, the father of the petitioner had filed the appeal.

6. He further stated that upon due consideration of the facts as also after taking note of the documents on record, the appellate authority recorded the specific findings while allowing the appeal which is to the effect that Consolidation Officer has not verified the compromise and after recording this findings, the opposite party no. 2 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Consolidation Officer to decide the matter a fresh. The relevant observations of the Appellate Authority in order dated 04.12.2022 are as under:-

lqygukek ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 13-11-1995 dk tks vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS mldh udy izfroknh }kjk izLrqr dh x;h gSA ftlds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd p0v0 }kjk lqygukek rLnhd ugha fd;k x;k tks lqygukek dh udy nh x;h gS ml ij dksbZ frfFk vafdr ugha gSA lqygukek dh vafre ykbu esa fy[kk x;k gS fd p0v0 izFke vesBh esa py jgk okn lhrkjke cuke ljdkj esa p0v0 dh lsok esa mfpr dk;Zokgh gsrq iszf"kr] ;g lqygukek fdl frfFk dks layXu i=koyh gqvk ;g Hkh Li"V ugha gSA lqygukek fu;ekuqlkj gqvk gh ughaA vr,o mlds vk/kkj ij ikfjr vkns'k dk;e ugha j[kk tk ldrk gSA Åij ds foospu ls Li"V gS fd QthZ lqygukek ds vk/kkj ij vkns'k ikfjr gS ftlds fo:) yxHkx 1 o"kZ foyEc ls vihy izLrqr gSA vihydrkZ }kjk foyEc dk tks dkj.k fn;k x;k gS og ;FkkZFkijd gS D;ksafd lqygukek fu;ekuqlkj gqvk gh ughaA vr,o tkudkjh dk u gksuk LokHkkfod gSA izfroknh }kjk dksbZ ,slk rF; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlls ;g Li"V gks lds ds vkyksP; vkns'k dh tkudkjh vihydrkZ dks FkhA ,slh n'kk esa lkjoku U;k; dks vxzlkfjr djus gsrq vkj0Mh0 1986 ist 417 ij iznRr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj nQk 5 fe;kn dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr gSA pwafd izfroknh dk dFku gS fd fo