MANISH VERMA vs JAGAT NARAIN SUBHARTI CHARITABLE TRUST AND ANOTHER

Present petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned judgment and order dated 25.07.2017 passed by learned Assistant Collector Vikas

Nagar, Dehradun, contained Annexure No. 6 to the petition, and judgment and order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner,

Garhwal Mandal, Dehradun in revision no. 44/2016-1, contained Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition, whereby the Addl. Commissioner Garhwal

Mandal, Dehradun has dismissed the revision filed by the revisionist (petitioner herein).Â

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Respondent no. 1 has filed the case no. 100/101 of 2016-17 Shri Shri 1008 Narayan Swami Charitable Trust, new name Dr. Jagat Narayan Subharti

Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred as Trust) vs. State before the Assistant Collector, Vikas Nagar under section 143 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari

Abolition and Land Reforms Act (for short U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act). The Assistant Collector vide its order dated 25.07.2017 has declared the land in

question as non-agricultural land under section U.P.Z.A.L.R. Act, situated in the village Kotda Santaur Pargana Pachvadoon, Tehsil Vikas Nagar,

District Dehradun. Feeling aggrieved, present petitioner preferred Revision No. 44 of 2016-17 before the Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal,

Dehradun. The Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal vide order dated 11.09.2017 dismissed the revision. The revisional court, while dismissing

the revision has narrated the facts of the case, but in a cryptic manner. The revisional court dismissed the revision in a few line stating therein that the

revisionist is not the trustee of the Trust and the name of the Trust is recorded over the land in dispute.Â

From the perusal of the order dated 11.09.2017, it would reveal that revisional court has decided the revision in one paragraph and has recorded

contradictory finding of the fact. At one hand it has been stated that revisionist is not the trustee of the Trust and revisionist has failed to point out any

illegality in the impugned order and on the other hand it has been stated that grounds raised by the revisionist shall be decided by the Civil Court.

The revisional court has not recorded any reason in arriving to its conclusion in dismissing the revision. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

State of Uttaranchal and another vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish and others reported in (2011) 8SCC 670 has held that reasons are life of law. For kind

reference, relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:-

“17. Of late, we have come across several orders which would indicate that some of the judges are averse to decide the disputes when they are

complex or complicated, and would find out ways and means to pass on the burden to their brethren or remand the matters to the lower courts not for

good reasons. Few judges, for quick disposal, and for statistical purposes, get rid of the cases, driving the parties to move representations before some

authority with a direction to that authority to decide the dispute, which the judges should have done. Often, causes of action, which otherwise had

attained finality, resurrect, giving a fresh causes of action. Duty is cast on the judges to give finality to the litigation so that the parties would know

where they stand.

Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly

events which happened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so

that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and

by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application

of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided.Â

Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper

reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for

the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to

respond to the parties' submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the

functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system.

We are sorry to say that the judgment in question does not satisfy the above standards set for proper determination of disputes. Needless to say

these types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality of adjudication of our courts. Public trust and

confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the direct experience of citizens from the judicial adjudication of their disputes.â€​

Thus, without expressing any opinion to the merits of the case and only considering the fact that no reason has been assigned by the Revisional

Court in dismissing the revision, the matter is remanded to the Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal Dehradun to decide the same afresh.

The impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2017 passed by Additional Commissioner is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The

matter is remanded to the Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal Dehradun who shall decided the same afresh, in accordance with the law,

without prejudice to the findings recorded by him earlier, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this

order. The learned Additional Commissioner shall made endeavour to decide the matter within such a period, after affording opportunity of hearing to

the parties and unnecessary adjournment shall not be granted to the parties. Parties shall remain present before the Additional Commissioner, Garhwal

Mandal, Dehradun on 25.04.2018 along with the copy of this order.

Â