Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against the order dt. 14.09.2012 passed by the learned Single Member of Board of Revenue, whereby the stay order already granted in favour of petitioner on 04.05.2012 was vacated without assigning any reason.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Board of Revenue has not assigned any reason for vacating the interim order granted in favour of petitioner and the respondents authorities may proceed with the mutation entries in favour of respondents, and therefore, the matter may be remanded back to the Board of Revenue for passing fresh and reasoned order. Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned counsel for the respondents, however, vehemently opposed these contentions and submitted that in view of the averments made in the application and its counter, it was not necessary for the Board of Revenue to record reasons while vacating the interim order dt. 04.05.2012.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the order dt. 14.09.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue, does not contain any reason for vacating the interim order already granted in favour of present petitioner. What reasons prevailed with the Board Revenue, should be reflected in the order itself and the order has to be self -contained, and it cannot be contended, as was done by the learned counsel for the respondents here, that since the counter -reply was filed, therefore, the reasons given therein, should be read into this order. In the opinion of this Court, this contention is unsustainable and deserves to be rejected. Therefore, the present writ petition is allowed and the order dt. 14.09.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue is set aside and the Board of Revenue is directed to pass fresh and reasoned order after hearing both the parties and recording the reasons therein within 6 weeks from today. Both the parties may appear before the Board of Revenue in the first instance on 16.01.2013. No costs.;