JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. Learned Counsel for Caveator-Opp. Parties states that the writ petition be heard and decided at the admission stage and he does not propose to file any counter affidavit.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for Caveator-Opp. Parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order dated 17th December, 2005, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad suffers from error of law apparent on the face of record in view of the fact that the grievance of petitioner was not considered at all by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. He further urged that contesting Opp. Parties were allotted Chaks on Plot Nos. 135, 136, 169 and 170 which are their original holdings. By the impugned order, no reasons have been assigned by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while reversing the order of subordinate consolidation Authorities. He prayed that the impugned order may be quashed.
4. In reply to the same, Sri Ayub Khan, learned Counsel for contesting Opp. Parties, urged that the order of Settlement Officer, Consolidation was also passed without assigning any reasons by which Chaks allotted to contesting Opp. Parties at the stage of Consolidation Officer were altered. He does not dispute the fact that in the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, there is no application so far as grievance of the petitioner is concerned.
5. Considered arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and materials on record.
6. Without going into the merits of the case as the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not consider the case of both the parties and did not record any reason for accepting or refusing to accept grievance of the parties, this Court is of the view that the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is liable to be set aside on the ground for non-application of mind by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and for not assigning any reason on the rival claims of the parties. No doubt it is also clear from the record that the Appellate authority has also not assigned any reason while reversing the allotment made at the stage of Consolidation Officer, but as the Deputy Director of Consolidation is the final court under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, which is competent to consider all aspects and record a finding on fact also, this Court is of the opinion that remand of the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the revision afresh will serve ends of justice.
7. In a recent decision in MMRDA Officers Association Kedarnath Rao Ghorpade v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority , the Apex Court held as under:-
Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the inscrutable face of the sphinx, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirement of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi judicial performance.
8. As the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation does not contain any reason for reversal of the orders of the subordinate consolidation authorities and grievance of the parties was not considered, this Court is of the view that the order dated 17th December, 2005 is unsustainable in law.
9. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 17th December, 2005, passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad, is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Moradabad to decide the matter in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and after considering the grievance of all the parties in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order within four months' from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.