JAGPATI Vs. CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. R. Yadav, J. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a relief of quashing the order dated 16-6-2001 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent No. 2 and order dated 13-7-2001 (Annexure-2) passed by respondent No. 1.

(2.) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that when the petitioner received notice under Z. A. From 49-A prescribed by rules framed under U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951, he filed an objection to the effect that he was not encroached upon chak-road and he is in possession only over his chak which was allotted to him during consolidation operation. IT is next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 did not afford an opportunity to petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his objection. IT is urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 had passed an order evicting the petitioner and imposing damages of Rs. 4,000/- upon him by a cryptic order. In support of the order impugned dated 16-6-2001 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), the respondent No. 2 has not recorded reason as to why he was not persuaded to believe the objection filed by the petitioner that he has not encroached upon the chak road ear-marked during consolidation operation. IT is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that aggrieved against the aforesaid order, when a revision was filed before respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 instead of setting aside the aforesaid cryptic order, has affirmed the order passed by respondent No. 2 mechanically with closed mind, which is per se illegal.

(3.) IT is conceded at the Bar that the orders impugned passed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are amenable to writ jurisdiction, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to demonstrate before this Court that the reasons which persuaded the Authorities to reject his case, were erroneous or based on non-existent grounds. From perusal of the orders impugned, it is apparent on face of record that neither any definable material has been discussed in support of the findings nor any reason has been given by both the Courts below as to why the petitioner should be evicted and as to why Rs. 4,000/- as damages, should be imposed upon him, while he is stating that he is not in possession over chak-road.