Kadeer Ahmad vs Additional Commissioner (Administration), Devi Patan Division, Gonda and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shri Karunakar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.S. Misra, learned Standing Counsel.

As the question involved in the present case is trivial in nature so with the consent of the parties the present writ petition is heard and disposed of at the admission stage and notices are dispensed with to the opposite party nos. 2 to 6.

In respect to the land which is situated in Village Bangawa, Pargana, TehsilUtraula, District Balrampur, the petitioner as well as some other persons were allotted residential land by way of Patta in accordance with law and after getting the possession of the land, which is allotted to the petitioner by way of Patta, the petitioner had constructed his house on the same, but the allotment of the said patta was in accordance with law by means of the order dated 13.7.2007 passed by opposite party no.1 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the order dated 13.7.2007 passed by the Chief Revenue Officer, Gonda, the petitioner filed a revision (bearing no.304) under Section 333 of the Z.A. & L.R. Act before the Additional Commissioner(Administration), Devi Patan Division Gonda, opposite party no.1 and on 28.2.2007 an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner.

The said order was extended from time to time. However, by means of the order dated 13.7.2009, the opposite party no.2 has cancelled/vacated the interim order dated 2.8.2007 and fixing the matter for hearing.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court whereby challenging the order dated 13.7.2009.

In the case of "Naim Pal Singh versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bulandsahar and others reported in 2008(105) R.D. 318" the Hon''ble Apex Court has held as under:

"that once an interim order has been passed, stayed the operation of the order of lower court, then order can only be vacated on the instance of effected party, suo motu, the Court cannot vacate interim order."

Further the order dated 13.7.2009 is a nonspeaking order & no reason is given for the passing of the same. It is well settled proposition of law that any Court while adjudicating the dispute is expected to render a reasoned judgment the object of this principle is to exclude, the arbitrariness in the adjudication of dispute by a court. Any judgment only containing the rival contention of the contesting parties and the conclusion without recording reasons for the said conclusion be termed nothing but arbitrary. The view taken by me finds support by a decision of this court in the case of "Asha Ram and others versus Deputy Director of Consolidation, Baghpat & others 2000(94) R.D. 588".

For the foregoing reasons the order dated 13.7.2009, passed by Opposite party no.1 is illegal and arbitrary and is accordingly quashed and the parties are directed to maintain statusquo in respect of the property in question which exists today till the disposal of the revision pending before opposite party no.1.