JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Order on the Application ( C.M.Application No.IA/4/2023) for Amendment of the Writ Petition

Objection field today against the application for amendment is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that he does not want to press this application and the same may be dismissed as not pressed.

3. To the aforesaid prayer, learned counsel for the side opposite have no objection.

4. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as not pressed.

Order on Petition

5. Heard.

6. Present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

"(i) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order, dated 07.01.2022, passed by the learned Tehsildar-Sadar, Lucknow in Case No.12181 of 2022, (Computerized Case No.T202110460212181), under Section 34/35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the petition;

(ii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order, dated 10.06.2022, passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Lucknow in Appeal No. 4624 of 2022 (Computerized Case No.T202210460204624), under Section 35(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition;

(iii) To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order, dated 22.08.2022, passed by the learned Court of Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow in Case No.REV/1627/2022/Lucknow (Computerized Case No.R20221046001627), as contained in Annexure No.3 to the writ petition."

7. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner availed the remedy provided under Section 210 of the Code of 2006 by filing the revision challenging the order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the respondent No.3-Tehsildar, Tehsil-Sadar, Lucknow in Case No.12181 of 2022, under Section 34 /35 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (in short "Code of 2006") as also the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Sadar, Lucknow in Appeal No. 4624 of 2022, under Section 35 (2) of the Act of 2006, which relate to mutation in the revenue records and being so, the revisional authority i.e. respondent No.1-Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow was under obligation to pass reasoned and speaking order, however, the respondent No.1 vide its order dated 22.08.2022 dismissed the revision i.e. Case No.REV/1627/2022/ Lucknow by a non-speaking order.

8. For coming to the conclusion that the orders passed the authorities i.e. respondent No.3 and respondent No.2 dated 07.01.2022 and 10.06.2022, respectively, are just and proper and no reason has been assigned. As such, the orders impugned herein are unjustified. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Another v. Sh.Masood Ahmed Khan & Others; reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. The relevant para 47 reads as under:-

"47.Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:

(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the deci