http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2900 of 2007

PETITIONER: Daya Ram

RESPONDENT: Raghunath & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/06/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 1751 of 2004)  

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.                  2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned  Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ  petition filed by respondent no.1. 3.      Background facts as projected by the appellant are as  follows:

On 16.9.1983 the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,  Maharajganj allotted the disputed plot No.1734 bearing area of  0.053 hectare in the name of respondent no.1.  The appellant,  a co-villager, noticed that the land was earlier being used as a  passage to Kali Mandir and that respondent no.1 was not  entitled to be allotted any land by the Government.  The  procedure prescribed for allotment of land was not followed.   As respondent no.1 was not a landless person, the allotment  in his favour was illegal.  Appellant filed a petition before the  District Magistrate, Maharajganj under Section 198(4) of the  U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950 (in short the ’Act’). The  District Magistrate on receiving the complaint called for the  allotment file and on examination found that due procedure  was not adopted and was done clandestinely. By order dated  7.11.2002, the Collector cancelled the allotment and further  directed that the land be taken over by the Gaon Sabha.   Aggrieved by the said order respondent no.1 had filed a  revision petition before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur, in  which the respondent no.1 took the plea that order passed by  the Collector, Maharajganj, is illegal as there was no report  called from the Lekhpal and no spot inspection was done.  The  Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on the ground  that the same was not maintainable.  In January 2003, the  respondent no.1 filed a writ petition No.1004/2003 before the  High Court.  The primary stand taken was that there was  delay in filing the application under Section 198 (4) of the Act  by the appellant.  Initially the High Court issued notice.   Appellant filed his counter-affidavit.  Learned Single Judge by  order dated 11.9.2003 by a practically non-reasoned order  allowed the writ petition.  The said order is the subject-matter  of challenge. 4.      In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant submitted that since the order is non-reasoned and  no discussion has been made as to why the orders passed by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the Collector and the Commissioner were to be interfered with,  the order cannot be maintained.   5.      Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 on the other  hand submitted that the order does not suffer from any  infirmity. 6.      We find that the learned Single Judge has not indicated  any basis for interfering with the orders of the Collector and  the Commissioner.  The only reason appears to be by reference  to the Annexure SA5 filed along with the supplementary  affidavit, which shows that the plot bearing no.735 does not  connect in any manner the road which goes to the Kali  Mandir, rather it is on the backside of the road. 7.      The basic question was about the eligibility of the  respondent no.1 for allotment of the land.  The specific stand  before the authority was that respondent no.1 was not a  landless person and, therefore, he was not entitled to be  allotted any land. There is no reference to this aspect in the  order.

8.      Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest  consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth  its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an  application of its mind, all the more when its order is  amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of  reasons has rendered the High Court’s judgment not  sustainable.  

9.      Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning  M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) All  E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the  fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery  (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed:  "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons  are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the  controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived  at". 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 reasons is an  indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least  sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter  before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can  know why the decision has gone against him. One of the  salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons  for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The  "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a  judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

10.     Above being the position, we set aside the impugned  order of the High Court, remit the matter to it for fresh  disposal.  We make it clear that we have not expressed any  opinion on the merits of the case. The appeal is allowed to the  aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.