JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. Impugned herein are the orders dated 28.11.1988, 2.1.1992, 16.8.1992 and 15.3.1999 passed by Addl. Collector, Etawah, Additional Commissioner (Admn.) Kanpur Division Kanpur and the Board of Revenue respectively.
2. It would appear that the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of Board of Revenue being aggrieved by the order of Addl. Collector Etawah whereby allotment made in favour of the petitioner-dated 19.3.1986 was rescinded allegedly without application of mind. It would appear that the petitioner also knocked at the doors of every appropriate forums in between and ultimately, invoked the procedure of this Court for appropriate relief.
3. From a scrutiny of submissions advanced across the bar it would appear that the grievance of the petitioner in the forefront is that the order canceling allotment had been passed exparte and without application of mind and further that the authority recorded no finding citing reasons for his conclusion.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the Opp. party. The learned counsel for the Opp. Parties argued before the Court in justification of the orders passed at every stage from the stage of Addl. Collector and also referred to paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit the substance of which is that the petitioner having his domicile in the same village, the allotment was; rightly cancelled.
5. I have been traversed upon the orders passed by all the authorities from the stage of Addl. Collector to the stage of Board of Revenue. It would appear from a perusal of the order that the Addl. Collector proceeded in the matter on the assumption that the petitioner had not responded to repeated summons and therefore, it seemed, he had nothing to say in response to the show cause notice in the matter In revision, Addl. Commissioner Kanpur Division Kanpur echoed similar reasons for dismissal of the revision application and ultimately, Single Member of the Board of Revenue also reiterated the self same ground for dismissal of revision.
6. The dispute involved pertains to allotment of Patta to the petitioner and proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were embarked upon pursuant to a report submitted by Gram Pradhan in which it was stated that the petitioner belonged to a village other than the village in question and therefore, he was wrongly allotted Patta. It would appear from the record that although the petitioner had filed Vakalatnama in the case on 10.7.1987 but thereafter, he stayed away on 7 and 8 dates and ultimately, the Addl. Collector proceeded in the matter assuming that the petitioner had nothing to say in reply to the show cause notice. In this connection, it is worthy of notice that proceeding under Section 198 (4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act has a trapping of quasi judicial proceeding and finding should be recorded in a manner simulating the standard of judicial proceeding. To be precise, there must be discussion and finding must be arrived at after recording reasons for conclusions. It has to be borne in mind that the necessity of giving reasons flows as a necessary corollary from the rule of law which constitutes one of the basic principles of the Indian Constitutional set up and therefore it is essential that the authorities must act judicially and decide the matter solely on the facts, solely on the material before them and by applying legal norms to factual situations. The requirement of giving reasons is an important safeguard to ensure observance of the duty to act judicially.
7. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is pellucid that the Additional Collector did not examine the matter judicially inasmuch, there is no discussion of the facts of the case nor any finding on the question of validity or invalidity of Patta etc. whether allotment made was irregular or against prescribed procedure and the authority merely proceeded in the matter on the assumption that since petitioner has not responded to show cause notice, he had nothing to say in the matter. By this reckoning, it would not be difficult to assume that the authority did not apply his mind to the facts of the case on merit, which was essential even if he was required to proceed in the matter exparte on the ground of repeated absence of any one of the parties. The manner in which Patta has been cancelled, is not Sanctified by the norms to be observed in a matter to be decided judicially. If despite repeated summons, the petitioner had not responded it was incumbent upon him to have gone into the merit of the case and recorded finding assigning reasons for his conclusion and there was no other short cut available to the authority except this. The authority dealt with the matter scantily and in subjective manner characteristic of the attitude and style of an administrative officer. Merely spelling out in his order that as petitioner had not filed any objection, it seemed, he had nothing so say, does not meet the requirements of standard simulating judicial standard nor can t be said that the authority had applied his mind to the facts of the case in an objective manner. I am afraid that subsequent authorities in the hierarchy also fell in the self-same error by toeing the line adopted by the Addl. Collector which as held above, suffered from non-application of mind and also that the order was passed without assigning any reasons and without showing that the authority had decided the matter on consideration of merit. In the circumstances, the orders impugned herein cannot be sustained.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned orders dated 28.11.1988 and 2.1.1992 passed by Additional Collector Etawah as also the order dated 16.8.1992 passed by Addl. Commissioner Kanpur Mandal Kanpur and also the order dated 15.3.1999 passed by Board of Revenue Allahabad are quashed and the matter is relegated to the Addl. Collector for decision afresh in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties within three months date of the date of production of a certified copy of this order.