S.N.Srivastava, J. - (1.) By means of present petition, the petitioner has assailed the judgment dated 2nd Dec., 2003 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation, Banda. The precise grievance of the petitioner in assailing the impugned order is that he was assigned chaks on plot Nos. 5234, 5349/1 and 5349/2 instead of allotting chaks on his original holding which comprised plot Nos. 5258/1, 5261, 5258/2/1 and 5260 admeasuring 3.34 hectare.
(2.) It would transpire from the record that initially the petitioner was assigned two chaks on his original holding at the stage of Asstt. Consolidation Officer while the respondent No-2 was allotted chaks on his original holding. It would further transpire from the record that the respondent No. 2 preferred a time barred objection on the premises that he had been allotted Udan Chaks. The objection culminated in being allowed and the respondent No. 2 was allotted chak over plot No 5349. The respondent No. 2 still feeling aggrieved, preferred appeal and the Settlement Officer Consolidation dismissed the said appeal. This led the respondent No. 2 to prefer a revision before the Deputy Director Consolidation which according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner resulted in altering of his original holdings to the detriment of the petitioner who had been completely divested of his original holding and instead he has been assigned chaks on holdings other than his original holdings. Per contra, Sri. J.N. Mishra, representing respondent No. 2 contended that respondent No. 2 was earlier allotted Udan Chak at the stage of Consolidation Officer and in appeal, his grievance having not found favour, he preferred revision. He further contended that the impugned order has been passed considering all aspects and it does not result in any hardship to any one of the parties.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner canvassed the non-application of mind is writ large inasmuch as the grievances and interest of the petitioner were completely shelved and have not been taken into reckoning by the Deputy Director Consolidation. Even from a bare perusal of the impugned order, it would transpire that the Deputy Director Consolidation decided as many as six revisions by a composite order including revision No. 83 filed by the respondent No. 2. The quintessence of the principles underlying the Consolidation Scheme is that every tenure holder should be allotted compact area at the place where he holds largest part of his holding and next is that the tenure holder as far as possible, should be allotted the plot on which exists his private source of irrigation or any other improvement together with the area in the vicinity equal to the valuation of the plot originally held by him and that every tenure holder as far as possible would be allotted chak in conformity with the process of rectangulation. In the light of the above principles, it is necessary for the consolidation authorities to sufficiently indicate that they were alive to the requirements as postulated in section 19 (1) of the Act and any departure can be made in exceptional circumstances and that such departure must be based on strong reasons. I have searched the entire impugned orders and I have not come across any specific reasons for depriving the petitioner of his original holding and assigning chaks on holdings other than his original holdings. It has been repeatedly observed that the orders passed in Consolidation proceedings must be informed with reasons inasmuch as reasons provide flesh to the bare bone and it fosters confidence of the litigant public that their viewpoints have been noticed. Secondly, the authority-concerned should bear in mind that if no reasons are given, the scope of judicial review becomes nominal and the Court cannot effectively consider the legality and propriety of the impugned order unless reasons for its making are disclosed. The right of a party to know the reasons for the decision of the quasi-judicial authorities is sanctified by the principles of natural justice. In case the order is not informed with reasons, it would litter the mind of the litigant public with suspicion that the authority has approached the matter recklessly without application of mind.;