Allahabad High Court
Smt Amrawati vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 18 May, 2023
Bench: Kshitij Shailendra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:108842
Court No. - 52
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16885 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt Amrawati
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra,Ajay Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has moved an application under section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which was decided pursuant to the order passed in writ petition and contempt application and ultimately on 14.01.2023, pillar stones were installed on the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that one Mohd. Shamim has obtained an interim order dated 02.03.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Phoolpur, Prayagraj in the margin of an application dated 02.03.2023 to the effect that both the parties of the suit shall, for the purposes of preservation of the property, not change the spot.
2. I find that the said order has been passed on a stay application filed by Mohd. Shamim along with Suit No. 106 of 2023, under section 116 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the order impugned dated 02.03.2023 does not assign any reason and, therefore, it is unsustainable.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta and others vs Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and others, reported in 2010 (13) SCC 336, special emphasis on paragraph 21 whereof, which is reproduced herein-below:
"21. 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 for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is for the forum to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of the justice - delivery system, to make it known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. "The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind." The reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, the order becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity with objectivity. The absence of reasons renders an order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum.
Recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected must know why his application has been rejected."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that once proceedings under section 24 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 were finalized, passing of the interim injunction order would frustrate the order and its implementation in the proceedings under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
6. From perusal of the record, I find that Mohd. Shamim was not a party to the proceedings under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Further a perusal of the plaint of suit filed by Mohd. Shamim would reveal that he alleged himself to be co-sharer of the land covered by Gata No. 123 along with petitioner Smt. Amrawati and, therefore, sought his share and Kurra. In the said background, Sub Divisional Officer passed an order of status quo as the allegation of Mohd. Shamim was that the defendant-petitioner was trying to change the nature of the land during the pendency of the suit.
7. In the opinion of the Court, the proceedings under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 may have some effect on the joint holdings of Mohd. Shamim and Smt. Amrawati. At the same time, I find that in order to grant injunction, satisfaction of three basic ingredients i.e., prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss have to be examined by the court concerned, but in the present case, Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed the order on administrative side in the margin of application on the same date, on which the suit was filed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a stay vacation application along with affidavit relying upon the proceedings under section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 decided pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in writ and contempt jurisdiction.
9. Be that as it may, since the order impugned is an ex-parte order and the petitioner has not been heard, the order impugned appears to have been passed on administrative side, it is provided that the Sub Divisional Officer shall take up the stay vacation application immediately and shall dispose it of within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him along with documentary evidence.
10. The Sub Divisional Officer shall deal with each and every contention of both sides and after taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court as referred to herein-above, dispose of the injunction matter, in accordance with law by passing a speaking and reasoned order.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.5.2023
Sazia
