HAS RAM Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GHAZIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by an order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21-12-1987 allowing the revision of disputed plots no. 427 and 428 of respondent no. 3.

(2.) I have heard Sri U.K. Mishra in support of writ petition and the standing counsel and also perused the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation. A perusal of the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation would go to show that he did not assign any reason for setting aside the order of the appellate court. It appears that the order has been passed without application of mind on the issues raised. Once an order was passed by the Consolidation Officer and Settlement Officer (Consolidation) taking into consideration the interest of the villagers who have got their residential houses In plot no. 120 including that of the petitioners and the chak road having been carved out adjacent to the abadi plots on one side, it was incumbent on the part of the Deputy Director of Consolidation that if he was not satisfied with the orders of the subordinate authorities, while considering the grievance of the respondent No 3 to refer the case of the petitioners and also the relevant consideration on which the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) had based his judgment, while deciding the appeal. In the matter of allotment of chak or carvation of a chak road the [interest of the villagers should be kept in mind as a whole and not the individual interest of a particular party, unless the situations are compelling to give primary consideration to an individual on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter. However, such peculiarity of the circumstances is rarest in rare. It is strange that the Deputy Director of Consolidation chose to dispose of the revision without assigning any reason for interference in the Judgment of Settlement Officer (Consolidation) An order of an authority may be brief and that order cannot be said to be a bad order. A brief order if it considers the case of both the parties on merits, it cannot be held to be a bad order in the eye of law Bat a cryptic order is necessarily a bad order when it considers the case of one party like the revisionist and not of the respondents