Harsh Kumar vs Board of Revenue and Others

Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Manish, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Tariq Maqbool Khan, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 5.2.2014 to the extent by which the petitioner''s application for interim protection has been rejected.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that second appeal was filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Additional Deputy Collector Padrauna in Suit No. 290/219 (Shanti v. Harsh Kumar and others) and judgment and decree dated 8.8.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur in Appeal No. 7/20/K (Harsh Kumar Pandey v. Smt. Shanti Devi and others).

It is contended that the petitioner is a tenure holder and the suit filed by the respondents has wrongly been decreed and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed without there being any application of mind. In his submissions, the learned Member Board of Revenue without assigning any reason has rejected the petitioner''s stay application and in case, the interim order is not granted, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

The petitioner''s stay application has been rejected by the order dated 5.2.2014 which is reproduced hereinunder:--

From the perusal of the order dated 5.2.2012, it is apparent that stay application has been rejected without assigning any reason.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, I find that the order is really cryptic one as it do not contain any reason.

The Apex Court in the case of Sant Lal Gupta and Others Vs. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Others, has observed as under:--

27.....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. [Vide : State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar, State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal and Others, Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and Others, , Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle and Others, , State of Uttaranchal and Another Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, , U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, , Ram Phal Vs. The State of Haryana and Others, , State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sh. Sada Ram and Another, and The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall Vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others, ]

In view of foregoing -discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.2.2014 passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue, U.P. Allahabad, is hereby quashed. The learned Member Board of Revenue is directed to consider the stay application of the petitioner afresh and pass a reasoned order thereon. Till the petitioner''s stay application is considered, neither any third party right shall be created nor the nature of the land shall be changed by the parties. It may be clarified that I have not addressed myself on the merit of the stay application. It is in the sole domain of the learned Member Board of Revenue to pass an independent order in accordance with law.