HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Dulha Khan .....Petitioner(s)

Versus Collector, Sambhal And 5 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Udai Chandani, Waseem Akram Counsel for Respondent(s) : Arun Kumar Pandey, C.S.C.

Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. In the proceedings initiated by Gaon Sabha against the petitioner under section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, an order was passed against the petitioner by the respondent no. 4/Assistant Collector-I/Tehsildar, Tehsil Sambhal, Mandal Moradabad on 11.02.2025 by the aforesaid order the petitioner was directed to evict from part of the land situated on Gata No.314 , 0.105 hectare for which the damages were also imposed upon the petitioner.

2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, statutory appeal as provided under section 67(5) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed by the petitioner which was rejected vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed by respondent no. 2- Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Sambhal hence the present petition. 3. It is argued by Sri Udai Chandani, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the respondent no. 4 is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

4. After going through the order passed by respondent no.4 dated 11.02.2025, the Court is of the prima facie opinion that the aforesaid order is absolutely non speaking order. Law in this connection is well settled by the large number of cases decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this Court that reasons are required to be given while passing any order having civil consequences. In the paragraph nos. 46 and 47 of M/S Kranti Associates Private Limited & Another vs Masood Ahmed Khan And others, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 certain observations were made by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding recording of the reasons. These paragraphs are reproduced below:-

"46. The position in the United States has been indicated by this Court in S.N. Mukherjee (supra) in paragraph 11 at page 1988 of the judgment. This Court held that in the United States the Courts have always insisted on the recording of reasons by administrative authorities in exercise of their powers. It was further held that such recording of reasons is required as "the Courts cannot exercise their duty of review unless they are advised of the considerations underlying the action under review". In S.N. Mukherjee (supra) this Court relied on the decisions of the U.S. Court in Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Chenery Corporation, (1942) 87 Law Ed 626 and John T. Dunlop vs. Walter Bachowski, (1975) 44 Law Ed 377 in support of its opinion discussed above.

47. Summarizing 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 decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as di