Allahabad High Court
Prabhu Dayal vs Deputy Director Of ... on 18 April, 2018
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Baghel
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3551 of 2018
Petitioner :- Prabhu Dayal
Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation/ A.D.M.(Administration)
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Verma,Prabal Kumar Dixit
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Janmed Kumar
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mainpuri, the first respondent, dated 29th December, 2017, whereby he has allowed the revision of the second respondent.
Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is Chak Holder No. 176 and in the revenue records Gata Nos. 473, 175, 675, 683, 672, and 487, total area 2.264 hectare, are recorded in his name. It is stated that during the consolidation scheme the Assistant Consolidation Officer, after inspection and following the procedure prescribed under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short,"the Act") and the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 (for short, "the Rules") has proposed four chaks to the petitioner, first chak in Gata No. 475, second chak in Gata No. 640, third chak in Gata No. 660 and fourth chak in Gata No. 700, total area 1.796 hectare. The second respondent, who is Chak Holder No. 196, was proposed three chaks by the Assistant Consolidation Officer.
The second respondent was not satisfied with the proposed chaks, hence the matter was heard by the Consolidation Officer and an order was passed on 07th February, 2014 carving out four chaks to the petitioner and three chaks to the second respondent.
Aggrieved by the said order of the Consolidation Officer the second respondent preferred an appeal under Section 11 of the Act, which was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation vide order dated 08th May, 2014. However, the second respondent was not satisfied with the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation and he preferred a revision under Section 48 (1) of the Act. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by the impugned order dated 29th December, 2017 has allowed the revision in one line order. The relevant part of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation reads as under:
"---xzke ds pd Hkwfp= ds voyksdu ,oa vfHkys[kksa ds ijh{k.k djus ds mijkUr bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaWprk gwWa fd fuxjkuhdrkZ dks cUnkscLr vf/kdkjh pdcUnh Lrj ij r`rh; pd xkVk la[;k&179] 180] 190 vkfn ij pd izfn"V fd;k x;k] mldks lekIr djds fuxjkuhdrkZ ds ewytksr ds xkVk la[;k&641] 642] 672] 673 vkfn ds uEcjksa ij r`rh; pd izfn"V fd;s tkus dh ekWax mfpr izrhr gksrh gS] mDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fuxjkuh Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA"
From the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it is clear that he was not sure in giving the direction about the case of the second respondent as he has used the words "ekax mfpr izrhr gksrh gS".
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is arbitrary and illegal as it does not disclose any reason. He further submits that the Assistant Consolidation Officer after the spot inspection has rightly proposed four chaks to the petitioner, however, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has interfered with it in the revisional jurisdiction without any justifiable reason that too without assigning any reason.
Learned counsel for the respondents has tried to defend the order on the ground that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is equitable and has been passed on right consideration.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The experience shows that some of the Deputy Directors of Consolidation of the State while exercising their power under Section 48 of the Act are passing similar orders without assigning any reason. No doubt, Section 48 of the Act is a revisional power but by the amendment by U.P. Act No. 3 of 2000 (w.e.f. 10th November, 1980) Explanation (3) has been added to it. Explanation (3) of Section 48 of the Act empowers the Deputy Director of Consolidation to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order which includes power to examine any finding whether of fact or law. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, Section 48 of the Act casts an obligation on the Deputy Director of Consolidation to pass reasoned order because such a decision is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and if reasons are recorded, it would enable the Court to effectively exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. It would also serve a purpose that authority would consider the matter properly by application of mind, then minimising the chances of arbitrariness in decision making.
The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled that the hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power of the judicial officers/ quasi-judicial officers and administrative officers must be supported by reasons. Even in the case of interim orders the Supreme Court in Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and others, 2010 LawSuit (SC) 719 : 2010 (13) SCC 336, has held that if the High Court passes an interim order, it must be supported by reason.
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984, which has been consistently followed by the Supreme Court, has held that if an order is without reason, the order becomes arbitrary. The said judgment has been followed in Kranti Associates Private Limited Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, and Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519. In the aforesaid cases, the Supreme Court has held that the reasons are heartbeats of the order and if there is no reason, the order becomes dead. In the present case, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not given even a finding much less reason as his finding also says that it appears that the claim of the revisionist is correct. In my view, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has failed to perform his statutory duty as he has passed the order in most casual way, without application of mind.
Regard may be had to the fact that the legislature has enacted the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as a beneficial piece of legislation and its object is to provide relief to the poor and marginal farmers to compact their holding which is only source of their livelihood. Section 40 of the Act also enjoins that the consolidation authorities must function as a judicial officer. It is not expected from a Deputy Director of Consolidation, who is a very senior officer, to decide serious matters of poor agriculturists in such a way. The Court finds that in a large number of writ petitions, which are filed challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the Deputy Directors of Consolidation do not assign reasons.
For the reasons mentioned above, I find that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mainpuri dated 29th December, 2017, impugned in this petition, needs to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the first respondent, to pass a fresh reasoned order after furnishing opportunity to both the parties.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Registry of this Court to the Consolidation Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, who shall send copy of this judgment to all the Deputy Directors of Consolidation in the State with a direction to pass orders under Section 48 of the Act in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned judgments.
Order Date :- 18.4.2018
SKT/-
