- (1.) S. K. Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this petition is the orders passed by respondents No. 1 and 2 in proceedings under U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The prescribed authority rejected the objection filed by petitioner against which appeal was filed by him which has also been dismissed. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced his argument on various aspects dealing with the facts and law, which was contested by learned Standing Counsel but the Court feels that on the facts and for the reasons which is being recorded in this judgment, going into various details may not be required as the writ petition is being allowed on a very short ground. The appellate authority has affirmed the judgment of prescribed authority. Although, it has been said by this Court as well as also by the Apex Court that in the judgment of affirmance, the higher forum is not required to reiterate the entire evidence and to give a detail finding and agreement with the reasoning and the finding of the lower authority may suffice but at the same time, the appellate authority cannot be permitted to decide the appeal in a mechanical and in a routine manner, specially in the cases where valuable rights of the parties are to be adjudicated either way. Needless to say that the land which is being claimed by the petitioner is to be taken away and thus, he is entitled to get his arguments and the evidence properly examined and tasted by the appellate authority as well who happens to be a superior forum. A bare perusal of the judgment of the appellate authority gives an impression to the Court that after noticing the submission of learned counsel for the parties, in one paragraph, the appellate authority has just mentioned the facts that each and every aspect has been considered and discussed by the prescribed authority and therefore, no further analysis is required and the appeal is being dismissed. As the appellate authority is possessed with all the powers i. e. to deal the factual aspects also besides legal aspects, various aspects which were argued before the appellate authority were required to be dealt with, even though not in very detail but atleast in a concised manner, so that this Court may be in a position to examine the assessment made by the appellate authority after application of his own independent mind. As the appellate authority has neither referred to any evidence nor he has given any independent reason for discarding the petitioner's contention, the Court is of the view that the matter needs fresh attention by the appellate Court. Accordingly, this petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Gorakhpur dated 9-2-1996 is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to re-decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both parties. As the matter is quite old, the appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order which the petitioner undertakes to file before the appellate authority, within a period of three weeks from today. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner undertakes not to take any unwarranted adjournment unless it is required due to very compelling reasons.
(3.) THE writ petition thus, stands allowed in the light of the directions as is contained in this judgment. Petition allowed. .;