DAYA RAMversusRAGHUNATH & ORS.

t
                                    DAYA RAM                                        A
                                         v.
                              RAGHUNATH & ORS.

                                  JUNE 15, 2007

                 [DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.]                        B

           U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950-s. 198(4)-land allotted by
    Government-Allotment challenged-Allotment cancelled and cancellation
    approved by revisional authority-Writ Petition challenging cancellation         C
    allowed without indicating any reasons-On appeal, held: Absence of reasons
    rendered the judgment of High Court not sustainable-Hence, matter remitted
    to 1!igh Court for fresh consideration-land laws and Agricultural Tenancy.

         '.Judgment-Reasons-Requirement of-In the judgr•. ent/order-Held :
    Reasons introduce clarity in an order-They substitute subjectivity by D
    objectivity-It is an indispensable part of sound judicial system-One of the
    salutary requirements of natural justice in spelling out reasons-Principles
    of Natural Justice.

          Respondent No.I was allotted the plot in dispute by Sub-Divisional
    Magistrate. Appellant (a co-villager) filed a complaint u/s 198(4) of U.P.      'E
    Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950 on the grounds that the land was earlier used
    as a passage to a temple; that respondent No.1 was not a landless person and
    that the procedure prescribed for allotment was not followed and thus the
    allotment was illegal. Collector cancelled the allotment on the ground that
    due procedure for allotment was now followed. A revision petition against       F
    the order of Collector was dismissed. Writ Petition was allowed by Single
    Judge of High Court by a non-reasoned order. Hence the present appeal.

         Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to High Court,
    the Court

          HELD : 1. Single Judge of High Court has not indicated any basis for      G
    interfering with the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. The only
    reason appears to be by reference to the Annex. SAS filed along with the
    supplementary affidavit, which shows that the plot does not connect in any
    manner the road which goes to the Mandir, rather it is on the backside of the
                                        1039                                        I-I
    1040                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A road. The basic question was about the eligibility of the respondent no.I for
    allotment of the land. The specific stand before the authority was that
    respondent no.I was not a landless person and, therefore, he was not entitled
    to be allotted any land. There is no reference to this aspect in the order.
                                            tparas 6 and 7] [1041-H; 1042-A-B)

B          2.1. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. Plainest consideration of
    justice, the High Court ought to ha\·e set forth its reasons, howsoever brief,
    in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order
    is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has
    rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable. [Para 8] f1042-C)

C        Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971) 1 All E. R. 1148 and
    Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, (1974) LCR 120, referred
    to.
         2.2. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on
   recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the
D sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to
   perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judi~ial review in
   adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable
   part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an
   application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the
 · affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the
E salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order
   made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is
   ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
                                                              [Para 9] [1042-D-G)

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2900 of2007.
F
          From the Final Judgment and Order dated l l.09.2003 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Allahabad, U.P. in W.P. 1004 of2003.

          Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Abhay Mani Kamal Kant Tripathy and Rameshwar
    Prasad Goyal for the Appellant.
G        Shrish Kumar Misra, Anish Kumar Gupta, Deep Shikha Bharati and Rita
    Gupta for the Respondents.

           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                         ~--


           DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I . Leave granted.
H
                    DAYARAMv.RAGHUNATH [PASAYAT,J.)                      1041

     2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned Single        A
Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by
respondent no. I.

      3. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:

        On 16.9.1983 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Maharajganj allotted the B
disputed plot No.1734 bearing area of 0.053 hectare in the name of respondent
no. I. The appellant, a co-villager, noticed that the land was earlier being used.
as a passage to Kali Mandir and that respondent no. I was not entitled to be
allotted any land by the Government. The procedure prescribed for allotment
of land was not followed. As respondent no.I was not a landless person,
the allotment in his favour was illegal. Appellant filed a petition before the C
District Magistrate, Maharajganj under Section 198(4) of the U.P. Zamindari,
Abolition Act, 1950 (in short the 'Act'). The District Magistrate on receiving
the complaint called for the allotment file and on examination found that due
procedure was not adopted and was done clandestinely. By order dated
7. I I .2002, the Collector cancelled the allotment and further directed that the· D
land be taken over by the Gaon Sabha. Aggrieved by the said order respondent '
no. I had filed a revision petition before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur, in,
which the respondent no. I took the plea that order passed by the Collector, ,
Maharajganj, is illegal as there was no report called from the Lekhpal and no
spot inspection was done. The Commissioner dismissed the revision petition
on the ground that the same was not maintainable. In January 2003, the · E
respondent no. I filed a writ petition No. I 004/2003 before the High Court. The
primary stand. taken was that there was delay in filing the application under
 Section 198 (4) of the Act by the appellant. Initially the High Court issued
notice. Appellant filed his counter-affidavit. Learned Single Judge by order
dated I I .9.2003 by a practically non-reasoned order allowed the writ petition. F
The said order is the subject-matter of challenge.

      4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that since the order is non-reasoned and no discussion has been made as to
why the orders passed by the Collector and the Commissioner were to be
interfered with, the order cannot be maintained.                                 G
       5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. I on the other hand submitted
that the order does not suffer from any infirmity.

      6. We find that the learned Single Judge has not indicated any basis for
interfering with the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. The only      H
    1042                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A reason appears to be by reference to the Annexure SA5 filed along with the
    supplementary affidavit, which shows that the plot bearing no. 735 does not
    connect in any manner the road which goes to the Kali Mandir, rather it is
    on the backside of the road.

          7. The basic question was about the eligibility of the respondent no.I
B   for allotment of the land. The specific stand before the authority was that
    respondent no. I was not a landless person and, therefore, he was not entitled
    to be allotted any land. There is no reference to this aspect in the order.

           8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of
C justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief,
    in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order
    is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has
    rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable.


D
           9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen
     v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971) I All E.R. 1148 observed "The
     giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In
     Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd v. Crabtree, (1974) LCR 120 it was
                                                                                         .
     observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are
     live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in
     question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute
E    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 reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system,
F   reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter
    before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the
    decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural
    justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking
    out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a
    judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
G
         J0. Above being the position, we set aside the impugned order of the
    High Court, remit the matter to it for fresh disposal. We make it clear that
    we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal is
    allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.

H   K.K.T.                                                   Appeal partly allowed.