Remanded

Budhiram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2019WRIB/2881/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside two non-speaking orders by the Deputy Director of Consolidation under the U.P. Land Reforms Act. The Court applied the principle from the Supreme Court that administrative/courts must pass reasoned orders after a fair hearing. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision within four months with status quo maintained.

What did the court decide?

The non-speaking orders dated 12.10.2012 and 31.10.2019 are set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent no. 1 to decide afresh within four months after hearing all tenure holders. Status quo maint

Budhiram Vs Deputy Director of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 2881 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Budhiram

¶4

Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Virendra Singh,Narendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay,Sunil Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1, Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 and Sri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3.

¶7

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the order dated 31.10.2019 passed in restoration application no. 1391 (State vs. Budhiram) as well as order dated 12.10.2012 passed in Reference/Revision Case No. 118 (State vs. Budhiram) filed under section 48(3) of (U.P.H.C. Act, 1953) in respect of village Khargajepur, Paragana Mohammadabad Gohana, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau, copies of which were appended as Annexure-10 and 6 to the writ petition respectively.

¶8

It appears from perusal of the record that on the basis of the reference made by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation an order dated 12.10.2012 was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Mau/respondent no. 1 by which the reference was approved by him. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a restoration application before respondent no. 1 on 26.10.2012. The said restoration application was rejected by the respondent no. 1 vide its order dated 31.10.2019. Challenging the aforesaid orders namely 12.10.2012 and 31.10.2019 the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

¶9

Apart from various other arguments one of argument has been made by Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that both the orders passed by respondent no. 1 are absolutely non speaking orders. It is argued that large number of arguments were made before respondent no. 1 while filing the recall application but none of them taken into consideration by him while rejecting the same vide its order dated 31.10.2019.

¶10

I have perused the order dated 12.10.2012 as well as

¶11

31.10.2019. From perusal of the aforesaid orders it is clear that both orders were passed without any application of mind. Both the orders are absolutely non speaking order. In this connection law is well settled as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. M/s Shukla and Brothers reported at 2010 AIR SCW 3277.

¶12

In the aforesaid case it was held by the Supreme Court that:-

¶13

i) A person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard.

¶14

ii) The concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure.

¶15

iii) The authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order.

¶16

Paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted below-

¶17

"9. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and its resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly judgement of courts in appeal before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the concerned authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad."

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of finally.

¶20

From perusal of the facts as stated above, it is clear that the orders namely order dated 12.10.2012 as well as 31.10.2019 passed by respondent no. 1 are non speaking orders.

¶21

In the facts and circumstances of the case both the orders are liable to be set aside only on this ground alone and the same are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back before respondent no. 1 to decide the matter a fresh after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned tenure holders expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months without granting unnecessary adjournment.

¶22

Till the time a decision is taken by the respondent no. 1, parties shall maintain status quo.

¶23

Order Date :- 17.12.2019 Swati

Budhiram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhiram v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Principal, N.R.E.C. College, Khurja, Bulandshahr, and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harish Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Rajesh Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Indrawati Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akhilesh Baranwal and 06 Others Vs State of U.P. and 04 Others

Smt. Meena Devi Vs Board of Revenue U.P. at Lucknow and 05 Others