# Sibtulain Khan v. State of UP & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 1 ILRA 902
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-06
- **Case number:** Writ B No. 39148 of 2017
- **Bench:** Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sibtulain-khan-v-state-of-up-ors-46713
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Sections 9, 11(1), 48 - U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 -
Rule 109 - U. P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land
Reforms
Act
-
Section 229B -
Application for Amal Daramad -Bereft of
reasons,
the
decision
is
inherently
arbitrary
-
It
is
well
known
that
"conclusions" and "reasons" are two
different things and reasons must show
mental exercise of authorities in arriving
at a particular conclusion.

It is trite to say for a legal principle that an
order passed by any judicial or quasi-judicial
Authority, or for that matter even Administrative
Authorities, where rights of parties are decided
ought to disclose reasons for the decisions
reached. As is often said, reasons are the soul
and heart of a decision and convey to the
persons affected, as also a superior Authority or
a Superior Court, the considerations that have
weighed with the decision maker in arriving at
his conclusions. On howsoever good and valid
consideration a decision may have been
rendered, the absence of reasons would make it
foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 14 to
16)

Court observed that the matter has been
pending consideration before the authorities
1 All. Sibtulain Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903
from last about 50 years, therefore concluded
that, no useful purpose will be served in
remitting the matter back before the authorities
and allowed the application submitted by the
petitioner u/Rule 109, directing the authorities
to make the necessary Amal Daramad in the
revenue record within a period of two months
from the date of presentation of the copy of the
order.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

## Text

902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

35. In the result, this petition
succeeds and is allowed with costs. The
impugned order dated 14.05.2015 passed
by
the
Executive
Officer,
Nagar
Panchayat, Jewar, District Gautam Budh
Nagar,
terminating
the
petitioner's
services,
is
hereby
quashed.
The
respondents - the Executive Officer,
Nagar Panchaway, Jewar, District Gautam
Budh Nagar and the Chairman, Nagar
Panchayat, Jewar, District Gautam Budh
Nagar, are ordered to reinstate the
petitioner in service forthwith, with all
consequential
benefits,
including
continuity of service and arrears of salary.
In computing the arrears of salary due to
the petitioners, the emoluments that the
petitioner has already received, shall be
adjusted.
It
will
be
open
to
the
respondent, Nagar Panchayat and their
various officers, if they so desire, to
proceed afresh with the departmental
proceedings against the petitioner. If the
respondents proceed afresh, they would
do so from the stage of the charge-sheet
dated 22.12.2014 and its reply dated
02.01.2015 submitted by the petitioner;
all subsequent proceedings shall stand
effaced.
In
the
peculiar
facts
and
circumstances,
in
the
event
the
respondents choose to proceed afresh,
they will do so after reinstating the
petitioner
and
paying
all
his
due
emoluments, but shall not place him
under suspension pending inquiry.

36. Let this order be communicated
to the Chairman and the Executive
Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jewar, District
Gautam Budh Nagar, through the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh
Nagar
by
the
Joint
Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2021)01ILR A902
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ B No. 39148 of 2017

Sibtulain Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of UP & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S. Rashid

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay

A. Civil Law - Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 - Sections 9, 11(1), 48 - U.P.
Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 -
Rule 109 - U. P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land
Reforms
Act
-
Section 229B -
Application for Amal Daramad -Bereft of
reasons,
the
decision
is
inherently
arbitrary
-
It
is
well
known
that
"conclusions" and "reasons" are two
different things and reasons must show
mental exercise of authorities in arriving
at a particular conclusion.

It is trite to say for a legal principle that an
order passed by any judicial or quasi-judicial
Authority, or for that matter even Administrative
Authorities, where rights of parties are decided
ought to disclose reasons for the decisions
reached. As is often said, reasons are the soul
and heart of a decision and convey to the
persons affected, as also a superior Authority or
a Superior Court, the considerations that have
weighed with the decision maker in arriving at
his conclusions. On howsoever good and valid
consideration a decision may have been
rendered, the absence of reasons would make it
foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 14 to
16)

Court observed that the matter has been
pending consideration before the authorities
1 All. Sibtulain Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903
from last about 50 years, therefore concluded
that, no useful purpose will be served in
remitting the matter back before the authorities
and allowed the application submitted by the
petitioner u/Rule 109, directing the authorities
to make the necessary Amal Daramad in the
revenue record within a period of two months
from the date of presentation of the copy of the
order.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. Sheo Pal Vs Basu Deo & ors., 2017 (135) RD
335 (Para 15)

2.U.O.I. Vs Mohan Lal Capoor, (1973) 2 SCC
836 (Para 16)

Present petition assails the order dated
30.11.2016, passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Azamgarh.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia, J.)

1. Heard Sri S. Rashid, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. The petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition inter-alia with the
prayer
to
quash
the
order
dated
30.11.2016 passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Azamgarh in Revision
No.100
under
Section
48
of
the
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act,
1953") with further prayer to allow the
application filed by the petitioner under
Rule 109 of the U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings
Rules,
1954
(hereinafter
referred to as "the Rules, 1954).

3. Facts in brief as contained in the
writ petition are that plot No.228 area 20000 acres, 235/2 area 1-205 Kadi and
237 area 1.640 Kadi in the name of the
petitioner as well as his brother namely
Sri Sikandar, The aforesaid lands were
recorded in the revenue records as Sirdar.
After the death of the brother of the
petitioner, the name of his legal heirs
were duly substituted in the revenue
records.

4. An objection under Section 9 of
the Act, 1953 was moved by one Riyaz
and others. The aforesaid objection was
decided by the Consolidation Officer vide
his order dated 16.12.1971 directing that
the name of the petitioner and his brother
be struck off from the revenue records
and the name of Gaon Sabha be recorded
over plots in question. The petitioner as
well as aforesaid Riyaz and Sohrab have
preferred appeals under Section 11(1) of
the Act, 1953 before the Consolidation
Officer being Appeal Nos.842, 843 and
934 (Sibtulain Khan Vs. Goan Sabha,
Village Bairedih). The Settlement Officer
Consolidation
vide
its
order
dated
31.07.1972 allowed the appeal filed by
the petitioner and dismissed the other two
appeals filed by Riyaz and Sohrab and
directions were given by him that the
name of the petitioner and his brother
Sikandar be restored as it was recorded
earlier. Against the aforesaid orders,
revisions were preferred by Sri Riyaz and
Sohrab and Gaon Sabha before the
Deputy Director of Consolidation. The
Deputy Director of Consolidation vide
order dated 25.08.1972 remained back the
matter before the Consolidation Officer.

5. Against the aforesaid order dated
25.08.1972 passed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation, the petitioner preferred a
writ petition being Writ Petition No.7637
of 1973 (Sibtul Ain Khan and others Vs.
Assistant
Director
of
Consolidation
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Azamgarh and others). The aforesaid writ
petition was finally allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide its
judgment and order dated 12.09.1979. The
order passed in the aforesaid writ petition is
reproduced below:-

"This writ petition is directed
against the judgment of the Assistant
Director of Consideration, Azamgarh dated
25.3.73 whereby the Revision petitions filed
against the petitioners were allowed.

It
is
noteworthy
that
the
petitioners claim in the disputed land was
recognized by the appellate authority on
the basis of an ex-parte decree in favour of
the petitioners. The revisional court has
dealt with the claims of the parties in the
following words:-

"PAKSHON KI BAHAS SUNI GAI
TATHA
SAKSHYA
KA
SATARKATA
PURVAK
AVLOKAN
KIYA
GAYA.
PATRAWALI PAR UPLABDH SAKSHYA SE
YAH PRATIT HOTA HAI KI 1368F. KE
KHASRE TATHA 1376F. KE KHASRE KEE
VIVARAN BHOOMI YA TO AKSHATAR YA
PURTAH BANZAR DARJ RAHI HAI,
KUCHH VARSHON MEN PHASAL DIKHAY
GAI HAI. KUCH BATAJAT MEN SADAK
BHI DIKHY GAI HAI, PAKSHO KE BICH
TATHA GAON SABHA KE BICH KUKAD
..... HAI PARANTU AISA PRATIT HOTA HAI
KI KISI ASTAR PAR MAUKA MAUANA
NAHIN KIYA GAYA JISASE YAH ISPASHT
HO PATA KI VIVADHAST BHOOMI MEN
KHETI
KI
JATI
HAI
TO
KITNA
KHESTRAPHAL MEN IN NIRNIYON KE
NIRNAY
LIYE
UKTA
PRACHHA
KE
IRNAYA KA HONA ATYANT AWASHYAK
HAI. CHUNKI IS PRASHNA KA NIRNAYA
APNISTHA NYAYALAYON PARA NAHI
DIYA GAYA HAI ATAH UKTA NIRNAYA
VIDHASTAR SAHI NAHI PRATIT HOTA
1968 R.D. PRISTH SAN 337, 1969 A.L.J. 88
882 TATHA 1969 D, 30KI SANKAREH BHI
DIYA SAY PARANTU JAB TAK YAH KA
SUKISHCHIT KAR LIYA JAI KI VADGRAST
BHOMI MEN KHETI KI JATI HAI ATHWA
NAHIN
TAB
TAK
MUKADMEN
KA
ATRANIYA UNCHIT KAHIN PRATIT HOTA
ATAH
ADHNASTH
NYAYALAY
ONKA
NIRNAYA
NIRAST
KIYA
JATA
HAI,
NIGPARNIYAN SWIKAR KI JATI HAI...."

From the above question, it
appears that the revisional court is under
impression that unless the nature of the
disputed land is ascertained it cannot be
effectively decided as to whether the
present petitioners are Sirdars of the land
in question or not. I think the approach of
the revisional court is patently erroneous.
So long as the exparte decree in favour of
the petitioners in respect of the dispute
land stands the consolidation authorities
have no jurisdiction to go beyond the
exparte decree. Before the point is
disputed whether the exparte decree has
been not aside or not. However, it is not
necessary for me to express any final
opinion on that question as, I think that
the impugned judgement of the Assistant
Director
of
Consolation
should
be
quashed and he should be asked to
reconsider the claim of the contesting
parties in accordance with law. It would
be open to the parties to satisfy the
revisional court as to whether the exparte
decree relied upon by the present
petitioners and accepted by the appellate
authority holds good or not.

For the reasons given above,
the writ petition succeeds and the
impugned judgement of the Assistant
Director
of
Consolation
dated
25.08.1973 is hereby quashed and the
Assistant Director of Consolation is
directed
to
rehear
the
revision
petitioners
against
the
petitioners.
Parties are directed to hear their own
costs."
1 All. Sibtulain Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
905

6. Pursuant to the order passed by this
Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the
matter was placed before the Deputy
Director
Consolidation
which
was
dismissed by him vide order dated
10.09.1987 and thereafter, the restoration
application filed by Riyaz and Sohrab
which was also dismissed.

7. It is argued by learned counsel for
the
petitioner
that
the
order
dated
31.07.1972 passed by the Settlement
Officer of Consolation has attained finality,
thereafter, the petitioner submitted an
application for Amal Daramad before the
Assistant
Consolation
Officer.
The
Consolation Officer, on 08.03.1998 has
made a reference and forwarded it along
with report of A.C.O. dated 27.05.1997
before the Assistant Consolation Officer,
Azamgarh
for
its
approval.
The
Consolation Officer on 29.06.2001 also
submitted its report under Section 109 of
the Act, 1953 along with all relevant
documents before the Deputy Director of
Consolation,
Azamgarh
for
Amal
Daramad. It is argued that when long time,
his application under Section 109 of the
Act, has not been decided, the petitioner
approached this Court by way of writ
petition being Writ C No.7186 of 2013 and
this Court disposed of the writ petition with
a direction to decide the matter within three
months. It is argued that thereafter, the
Deputy Director of Consolation, Azamgarh
decided the application in a cryptic manner
and rejected the same by passing arbitrary,
unjust and non-speaking order dated
30.11.2016.

8. In the impugned order, it is stated
that the District Government Counsel has
submitted report that the land is recorded as
Bhita which is public utility land and thus,
it could not be included in Chak.

9. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the learned Standing Counsel. It is
stated in the counter affidavit that the order
passed
by
the
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation which is impugned in the
present writ petition is absolutely prefect
and valid order and does not call for any
interference by this Court.

10. In response to the same, it is
argued by counsel for the petitioner that the
order impugned is absolutely illegal and
liable to be set aside. It is further argued
that no revision whatsoever has been filed
by anybody or authority challenging the
order passed by the Settlement Officer of
Consolidation as directed by the Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh in its
order dated 30.11.2016. Moreover, the
decree passed in Case No.480 dated
23.8.1965 in suit uner Section 229B is still
unchallenged
and
hold
good.
Thus,
rejection of application of the petitioner
under Rule 109 is wholly illegal.

11. The order passed by the
Settlement Officer of Consolidation which
was passed in the year 1972 has become
final, and as such, the application submitted
by the petitioner under Rule 109 is liable to
be allowed.

12. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

13. From perusal of the record, it is
clear that the controversy starts in the year
1971 when the objection was filed by Riyaz
and
others
which
was
decided
on
16.12.1971 by which the name of the
petitioner and his brother was struck off.
Against the aforesaid order, petitioner and
others filed appeals before the Settlement
Officer, Consideration and the same were
allowed by order dated 31.07.1972 by
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which the name of the petitioner and his
brother was restored and the appeal filed by
Riyaz and Sohrab were dismissed. Against
the aforesaid order, three revisions were
filed by Riyaz, Soharab and Ghoan Sabha
before the D.D.C. and D.D.C by order
dated 25.08.1972 remanded back the matter
before the Consideration Officer. Against
the aforesaid order, petitioner filed Writ
Petition No.7037 of 1973 before this Court
and this Court vide order dated 12.09.1979
allowed the writ petition directing the
D.D.C. to decide the matter himself.
Thereafter, the D.D.C. vide order dated
10.09.1987 dismissed the revisions filed by
Riyaz, Soharab and Ghoan Sabha. This
order has never been challenged before any
forum and the order dated 31.07.1972
passed by the Settlement Officer of
Consolation attained finality. Thereafter,
the petitioner filed an application under
Section 9 of the Act, 1953 in the year 1998
and the same was dismissed on 30.11.2016.

14. The D.D.C. has not recorded any
finding and has dismissed the application
on the basis of the report of D.G.C. thus,
the order is non-speaking order and is as it
did not contain any reason or findings. It is
trite to say for a legal principle that an
order passed by any judicial or quasijudicial Authority, or for that matter even
Administrative Authorities, where rights of
parties are decided ought to disclose
reasons for the decisions reached. As is
often said, reasons are the soul and heart of
a decision and convey to the persons
affected, as also a superior Authority or a
Superior Court, the considerations that
have weighed with the decision maker in
arriving at his conclusions. Bereft of
reasons, the decision is inherently arbitrary.
On
howsoever
good
and
valid
consideration a decision may have been
rendered, the absence of reasons would
make it foul of Article 14 of the
Constitution.

15. Law in this connection is well
settled in the case of Sheo Pal vs. Basu
Deo & others, 2017 (135) RD 335. In this
case following observations were made by
this Court:-

"1.
.....The
only
argument
advances is that without giving any reason
by a totally non-speaking order revision
has been allowed by DDC.

3. A bare perusal thereof would
leave no manner of doubt that it is totally a
non-speaking and unreasoned order. The
issues raised by petitioner has not been
discussed at all and straightway conclusion
have been recorded by DDC.

16.

It
is
well
known
that
"conclusions" and "reasons" are two
different things and reasons must show
mental exercise of authorities in arriving at
a particular conclusion. In Union of India
v.
Mohan
Lal
Capoor
MANU/SC/0405/1973 : (1973) 2 SCC 836,
as under:-

"Reasons are the links between
the materials on which certain conclusions
are based and the actual conclusions. They
disclose how the mind is applied to the
subject matter for a decision whether it is
purely administrative or quasi-judicial.
They should reveal a rational nexus
between the facts considered and the
conclusions reached."

17. Apart from the fact that the order
impugned is non-speaking order, it appears
from the perusal of the record that the
matter is pending consideration before the
authorities since 1972. Time and again
orders after orders were passed, but till date
1 All. Kalim Ullah Vs. D.D.C. Sultanpur & Ors.
907
no final decision has been taken in the
matter by the authorities. It further appears
from the perusal of the record that in
pursuance of the order of the High Court
dated 12.9.1979, the Deputy Director of
Consolidation has dismissed the revision
filed by Riyaz and Sohrab on 10.9.1987.
The application for setting aside the order
was also dismissed by the Deputy Director
of Consolidation. Thus, the order passed on
31.7.1972 is final.

18. Since the matter is pending
consideration before the authorities from
last about 50 years, in the special facts and
circumstances of the case, no useful
purpose will be served in remitting the
matter back before the authorities.

19. In view of the same, the
application submitted by the petitioner
under Rule 109 is liable to be allowed and
the authorities are directed to make the
necessary Amal Daramad in the revenue
record within a period of two months from
the date of presentation of the copy of the
order.

20. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2021)01ILR A907
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Consolidation No. 1436 of 2021

Kalim Ullah ...Petitioner
Versus
D.D.C. Sultanpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Brijesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - U.P. Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Power to recall an exparte order - A Tribunal or body should be
considered to be endowed with such
ancillary or incidental powers as are
necessary
to
discharge
its
functions
effectively for the purpose of doing justice
between the parties. Although there is no
express provision in the Act or Rules framed
there under giving the Industrial Tribunal
jurisdiction to set-aside its ex parte award,
Tribunal should be considered as invested with
such incidental or ancillary powers unless there
is any indication in the statute to the contrary.
(Para 9)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-3)

Precedent distinguished:

Smt. Anar Kali & ors. Vs Deputy Director of
Consolidation & ors., 1997 (15) LCD 921 (Para 3)

Precedent followed:

Grindlays Bank Ltd. Vs Central Government
Industrial Tribunal, 1980 (Supp.) SCC 420 (Para 9)

Present petition assails the order dated
12.01.2021, passed by Deputy Director of
Consolidation, Sultanpur.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
respondent no.1.

2. Under challenge is the order dated
12.01.2021 passed by learned Deputy
Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur, a
copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ
petition, by which, upon an application
moved by the private respondents, the exparte order dated 06.11.2015 has been