JUDGMENT Lakshmi Bihari, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the judgments dated 23.4.1981, 29.9.1981 and 2.6.1983 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Settlement Officer, Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation respectively.
2. It appears that in the basic year, the name of Nanhu, father of contesting respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was recorded over the plot in dispute as sirdar. The petitioners filed an objection under Section 9 (2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (for short the Act) claiming sirdari rights on the basis of adverse possession. The Consolidation Officer allowed the satd objection. The appeal filed by Nanhu against the order of the Consolidation Officer was allowed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation who by his judgment dated 30,6.1977 set aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and remanded the case to the Court of Consolidation Officer for deciding the case after hearing the parties and in accordance with law. A copy of the order dated 30.6.1977 has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioners filed an application for amendment before the Consolidation Officer. A copy of the said amendment application has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. By the said amendment application, they sought to add a paragraph in their objection claiming bhumidhari rights over the plot in dispute. The Consolidation Officer by his order dated 23.4.1981 rejected the said application for amendment, a copy of the order dated 23.4.1981 has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, who by his order dated 29.9.1981 (Annexurc 4 io the writ petition) dismissed the appeal. Against the said order daled 29.9.1981. the petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The revision too was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 2.6.1983. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4. A perusal of the judgment dated 2.6.1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation shows that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has not recorded his reasons. A judgment without reasons is no Judgment in the eyes of law and cannot be sustained. Therefore, in my opinion, it is in the interest of justice to remand the case to the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation to decide the revision afresh. The Deputy Director of Consolidation is directed to hear the parties, formulate the points for decision and record his finding on each point so formulated giving his reasons thereon.
5. In view of the discussion made above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 2.6.1983 is set aside. The case is remanded to the Court of Deputy Director of Consolidation for deciding the revision afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.