S. N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) -Heard Sri A. P. S. Raghav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ved Mani Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 3.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was that at the stage of Consolidation Officer, arrangement made resulted in excision of large part of land from the original holding of the petitioner i.e., Gata No. 201 and to his detriment, the petitioner has been allotted correspondingly lesser area from plot No. 197. THE Settlement Officer, Consolidation having regard to the detriments suffered by the petitioner at the stage of Consolidation Officer, amended the arrangement in appeal and the petitioner was allotted area out of plot No. 202 adjoining to his original holding vide order dated 28.12.2001. Since the amendment of the arrangement made in appeal by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, affected the respondent No. 3, a revision was preferred before the Deputy Director of Consolidation who allowed the revision and thereby status quo ante was restored. It is in the above backdrop that the present petition has been preferred impugning the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. From a perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, it would appear that brevity has been preferred to detailed discussion of the respective cases of the parties and after stating grievance, the authority has jumped to the conclusion that the revision is apt to be allowed. It is worth noticing that Deputy Director of Consolidation is the final court in hierarchical order and he has to satisfy himself as to the regularity of the proceedings or as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order as envisaged in Section 48 (1) of the U. P. C. H. Act. It appears that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has dealt with the matter in a very casual manner and does not have the same fullness as a judgment in law should be. It does not disclose logical sequence of cause and effect and does not give the appearance of a judgment informed with reasons inasmuch as it indicates neither the appreciation of the facts nor of the law applicable which would have bearing upon the right decision of the case. The requirement of recording reasons and analytical discussion of the respective contentions and the evidence adduced in the case is intended to ensure fairness in the administration of justice as observed by this Court in a recent decision rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13384 of 2003, Tirathraj v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mirzapur and others. It has been recently observed by the Apex Court in Ram Ashrey Singh v. Ram Bux Singh, 2003 All LJ 812, as under : "Right to reason is an indispensable part of the sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of a sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." In the above perspective, upon consideration of the facts and circumstances and having regard to the fact that the impugned order does not contain discussion including the arguments advanced, materials and also reasons for accepting or effusing the claims of the respective contentions of the parties nor reasons for allowing the revision, it cannot be sustained as it is not a judgment having fullness of a judgment in law.
(3.) AS a result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. The matter is relegated to the Deputy Director of Consolidation with the direction to afford opportunity of hearing to the parties and adjudicate upon the matter after delving into each and every aspect having bearing on the controversy involved in the case within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It needs hardly be said that the authority shall assign reason for his conclusions.;