STATE OF UTTARANCHAL &ANR. versus SUNIL KUMAR VAISH & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 754 · Decided: 16-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R 754 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. 
v. 
SUNIL KUMAR VAISH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5374 of 2005) 
AUGUST 16, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Administrative Law - Executive action - File notings -
Nature of - R' was found to be an unauthorised occupant of 
C the land in question - That finding attained finality - District 
Magistrate sent an inter-departmental communication to the 
Secretary, State Government making recommendations for 
payment of compensation to 'R' with regard to the said land 
- State Government rejected the recommendations made by 
D the District Magistrate for payment of compensation - Writ 
petition -
High Court placed reliance upon the 
recommendations made by the District Magistrate in its said 
earlier 
inter-departmental 
corr, '11Unication 
to 
the 
Secretary, State Government and granted relief of 
E compensation to respondents (the successors-in-interest of 
'R} - Validity - Held: In the face of the decision taken by the 
State Government, the High Court could not have relied upon 
the recommendations made by the District Magistrate by 
treating the same as an order of the State Government -
F Unless an order is expressed in the name of the President 
or the Governor and is authenticated in the manner 
prescribed by th({ rules, the same cannot be treated as an 
order on behalf of the Government - A noting recorded in the 
file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more - It merely 
G represents expression of opinion by the particular individual 
and cannot be treated as a decision of the Government - Even 
if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the 
merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be 
termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified 
H 
754 
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 755 
VAISH & ORS. 
and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles A 
77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2) - The noting in the 
file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting 
right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of 
the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and 
authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 
B 
166(2) - A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can 
always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the 
court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision 
for exercise of the power of judicial review - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Articles 77 and 166. 
c 
Judgment/Order - Judicial determination - Reasoned 
decisions - Necessity of - Duty of Judges to give finality to 
litigation - Held: Duty is cast on the judges to give finality to 
the litigation so that the parties would know where they stand 
- Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the 
D 
quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality 
of its reasoning - Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity 
which should not be sacrificed for expediency -
The 
. requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to 
respond to the parties' submissions and to specify the points 
E 
that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the 
society to understand the functioning of the judicial system 
and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people 
in the judicial system. 
The State Government had leased out the land in 
question to 'R' for agricultural purposes. The District 
Magistrate determined the lease as per the lease deed 
stating that the land was required by the Government for 
F 
a public purpose and directed 'R' to vacate the premises. 
G 
'R' did not vacate the premises. The State Government 
then initiated ejectment proceedings under Section 4 of 
the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised 
Occupants) Act, 1972 before the Prescribed authority 
(Sub Divisional Magistrate). The Prescribed authority as 
H 
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
A well as the appellate forum held against 'R'. 'R' filed Writ 
petition before the High Court contending that he should 
be treated as Bhumidar under the U.P. Zamindari 
Abolition and Land Reforms Act. High Court dismissed 
the writ petition. The order of the High Court was affirmed 
s by the Supreme Court. 
Subsequently, the District Magistrate sent an inter· 
departmental communication to the Secretary, State 
Government recommending payment of compensation to 
'R' with regard to the land in question

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