DAYA RAM versus RAGHUNATH & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 1039 · Decided: 15-06-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

t 
DAYA RAM 
A 
v. 
RAGHUNA TH & ORS. 
JUNE 15, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950-s. 198(4)-land allotted by 
Government-Allotment challenged-Allotment cancelled and cancellation 
approved by revisional authority-Writ Petition challenging cancellation C 
allowed without indicating any reasons-On appeal, held: Absence of reasons 
rendered the judgment of High Court not sustainable-Hence, matter remitted 
to 1!igh Court for fresh consideration-land laws and Agricultural Tenancy. 
'.Judgment-Reasons-Requirement of-In the judgr •. ent/order-Held : 
Reasons introduce clarity in an order-They substitute subjectivity by D 
objectivity-It is an indispensable part of sound judicial system-One of the 
salutary requirements of natural justice in spelling out reasons-Principles 
of Natural Justice. 
Respondent No.I was allotted the plot in dispute by Sub-Divisional 
Magistrate. Appellant (a co-villager) filed a complaint u/s 198(4) of U.P. 'E 
Zamindari Abolition Act, 1950 on the grounds that the land was earlier used 
as a passage to a temple; that respondent No.1 was not a landless person and 
that the procedure prescribed for allotment was not followed and thus the 
allotment was illegal. Collector cancelled the allotment on the ground that 
due procedure for allotment was now followed. A revision petition against F 
the order of Collector was dismissed. Writ Petition was allowed by Single 
Judge of High Court by a non-reasoned order. Hence the present appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter back to High Court, 
the Court 
HELD : 1. Single Judge of High Court has not indicated any basis for G 
interfering with the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. The only 
reason appears to be by reference to the Annex. SAS filed along with the 
supplementary affidavit, which shows that the plot does not connect in any 
manner the road which goes to the Mandir, rather it is on the backside of the 
1039 
I-I 
1040 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A road. The basic question was about the eligibility of the respondent no.I for 
allotment of the land. The specific stand before the authority was that 
respondent no.I 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. 
tparas 6 and 7] [1041-H; 1042-A-B) 
B 
2.1. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. Plainest consideration of 
justice, the High Court ought to ha\·e 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. [Para 8] f 1042-C) 
C 
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971) 1 All E. R. 1148 and 
Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, (1974) LCR 120, referred 
to. 
2.2. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on 
recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the 
D sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to 
perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judi~ial 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 
E 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. 
F 
G 
H 
[Para 9] [1042-D-G) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2900 of2007. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated l l.09.2003 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad, U.P. in W.P. 1004 of2003. 
Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Abhay Mani Kamal Kant Tripathy and Rameshwar 
Prasad Goyal for the Appellant. 
Shrish Kumar Misra, Anish Kumar Gupta, Deep Shikha Bharati and Rita 
Gupta for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T, J. I . Leave granted. 
~--
DAYARAMv.RAGHUNATH [PASAYAT,J.) 
1041 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by learned Single A 
Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by 
respondent no. I. 
3. Backg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.