- (1.) R. R. Yadav, J. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a relief of quashing the order dated 16-6-2001 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 13-7-2001 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent No. 1.
(2.) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner received notice under Z. A. From 49-A prescribed by rules framed under U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951, he filed an objection to the effect that he was not encroached upon chak-road and he is in possession only over his chak which was allotted to him during consolidation operation. IT is next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 did not afford an opportunity to petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his objection. IT is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 had passed an order evicting the petitioner and imposing damages of Rs. 4,000/- upon him by a cryptic order. In support of the order impugned dated 16-6-2001 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the respondent No. 2 has not recorded reason as to why he was not persuaded to believe the objection filed by the petitioner that he has not encroached upon the chak road ear-marked during consolidation operation. IT is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that aggrieved against the aforesaid order, when a revision was filed before respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 instead of setting aside the aforesaid cryptic order, has affirmed the order passed by respondent No. 2 mechanically with closed mind, which is per se illegal. Learned Standing Counsel, Sri L. P. Tiwari, with feeble voice, made an attempt to support the orders impugned passed by respondents No. 1 and 2. From the facts and circumstances, averred in the writ petition and from perusal of impugned orders, I am satisfied that respondent Nos. 1 and 2, both have committed manifest error of law in passing the orders impugned evicting the petitioner and imposing damages of Rs. 4,000/- upon him on conjectures and surmises. The orders of eviction and imposition of damages upon the petitioner are not based on definable material. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have not recorded reasons in support of their conclusion. It is known to all of us that reasons have link to the conclusion and it indicate about the application of mind by the authorities to the facts and circumstances of the case.
(3.) IT is conceded at the Bar that the orders impugned passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are amenable to writ jurisdiction, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to demonstrate before this Court that the reasons which persuaded the Authorities to reject his case, were erroneous or based on non-existent grounds. From perusal of the orders impugned, it is apparent on face of record that neither any definable material has been discussed in support of the findings nor any reason has been given by both the Courts below as to why the petitioner should be evicted and as to why Rs. 4,000/- as damages, should be imposed upon him, while he is stating that he is not in possession over chak-road. It is held that when judicial power is exercised by an authority normally performing executive or administrative functions, this Court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order and also disclosure of definable material on the basis of which such orders are passed, on two grounds, one that the party aggrieved in a proceeding before the High Court may have an opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous; the other, the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power.;