# Jafar v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 238
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-01-20
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4045 of 2006
- **Bench:** S.N. Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jafar-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40653
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-1960section
48-Check
allotment-private
respondent were allotted check on their
original holding D.D.C. without recording
any reason-without application of mindreversed
the
order
passed
by
the
subordinate consolidation authoritiesorder can not sustain-direction issued to
decide
the
matter
after
giving
opportunity to both the parties.

Held : Para 7

As the order passed by the Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
does
not
contain any reason for reversal of the
orders of the subordinate consolidation
authorities and grievance of the parties
was not considered, this Court is of the
view
that
the
order
dated
17th
December, 2005 is unsustainable in law.
Case law discussed:
2005 (2) SCC-235

## Text

238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4045 of 2006

Jafar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.P.S. Chauhan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ayub Khan
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-1960section
48-Check
allotment-private
respondent were allotted check on their
original holding D.D.C. without recording
any reason-without application of mindreversed
the
order
passed
by
the
subordinate consolidation authoritiesorder can not sustain-direction issued to
decide
the
matter
after
giving
opportunity to both the parties.

Held : Para 7

As the order passed by the Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation
does
not
contain any reason for reversal of the
orders of the subordinate consolidation
authorities and grievance of the parties
was not considered, this Court is of the
view
that
the
order
dated
17th
December, 2005 is unsustainable in law.
Case law discussed:
2005 (2) SCC-235

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.)

1. Learned counsel for CaveatorOpp. Parties states that the writ petition be
heard and decided at the admission stage
and he does not propose to file any
counter affidavit.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
and
learned
counsel
for
Caveator-Opp. Parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
urged that the impugned order dated 17th
December, 2005, passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Moradabad
suffers from error of law apparent on the
face of record in view of the fact that the
grievance of petitioner was not considered
at all by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation. He further urged that
contesting Opp. Parties were allotted
Chaks on Plot nos. 135, 136, 169 and 170
which are their original holdings. By the
impugned order, no reasons have been
assigned by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation while reversing the order of
subordinate consolidation Authorities. He
prayed that the impugned order may be
quashed.

3. In reply to the same, Sri Ayub
Khan, learned counsel for contesting Opp.
Parties, urged that the order of Settlement
Officer, Consolidation was also passed
without assigning any reasons by which
Chaks allotted to contesting Opp. Parties
at the stage of Consolidation Officer were
altered. He does not dispute the fact that
in the order of the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, there is no application so
far as grievance of the petitioner is
concerned.

4. Considered arguments of learned
counsel for the parties and materials on
record.

5. Without going into the merits of
the case as the Deputy Director of
1 All] Jafar V. State of U.P. and others
239
Consolidation did not consider the case of
both the parties and did not record any
reason for accepting or refusing to accept
grievance of the parties, this Court is of
the view that the order of Deputy Director
of Consolidation is liable to be set aside
on the ground for non-application of mind
by the Deputy Director of Consolidation
and for not assigning any reason on the
rival claims of the parties. No doubt it is
also clear from the record that the
Appellate authority has also not assigned
any reason while reversing the allotment
made at the stage of Consolidation
Officer, but as the Deputy Director of
Consolidation is the final court under the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act,
which is competent to consider all aspects
and record a finding on fact also, this
Court is of the opinion that remand of the
matter
to
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation for deciding the revision
afresh will serve ends of justice.

6. In a recent decision in MMRDA
Officers
Association
Kedarnath
Rao
Ghorpade
v.
Mumbai
Metropolitan
Regional Development Authority, the
Apex Court held as under:-

"Reasons substitute subjectivity by
objectivity. The emphasis on recording
reasons is that if the decision reveals the
inscrutable face of the sphinx, it can, by
its silence, render it virtually impossible
for the courts to perform their appellate
function or exercise the power of judicial
review in adjudging the validity of the
decision.
Right
to
reason
is
an
indispensable part of a sound judicial
system. Another rationale is that the
affected party can know why the decision
has gone against him. One of the salutary
requirement of natural justice is spelling
out reasons for the order made, in other
words, a speaking out. The inscrutable
face
of
the
sphinx
is
ordinarily
incongruous with a judicial or quasi
judicial performance."

7. As the order passed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation does not
contain any reason for reversal of the
orders of the subordinate consolidation
authorities and grievance of the parties
was not considered, this Court is of the
view that the order dated 17th December,
2005 is unsustainable in law.

8. In view of the discussions made
above, the writ petition succeeds and is
allowed. The order dated 17th December,
2005, passed by the Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Moradabad, is quashed.
The matter is remanded back to the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Moradabad to decide the matter in
accordance
with
law
after
giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties and
after considering the grievance of all the
parties in accordance with law by passing
a reasoned order within four months' from
the date of presentation of a certified copy
of this order. Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16267 of 2003

Jitendra Kumar and others ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents
Connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35962 of 2003
Gautam Prasad Patel

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents