JAMIL UDDIN Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGALITY of order dated 30.10.2002 passed by Deputy Director Consolidation has been canvassed by means of the present petition on the ground that the revisional authority interfered with the allotment without explaining why the authority concerned was not inclined to accept the appreciation recorded by the appellate authority.

(2.) IN the instant case, the dispute revolves round plot No. 240, which according to the petitioner was purchased by him from Midhai Lal, the original tenure holder. It transpires from the perusal of the record that two sale deeds were executed by Midhai Lal in relation to plot No. 240, one in favour of petitioner and the other in favour of respondent No. 4. At the stage of Consolidation Officer, on objection being filed, the authority concerned assigned plots 245 and 268 to Midhai Lal, original tenure holder of plot No. 240 while plot No. 240 was allotted to respondent No. 4. The petitioner aggrieved by the order preferred appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation who allowed the appeal and restored original holding to the petitioner. The matter was taken up in revision by the respondent No. 4 before the Deputy Director Consolidation who allowed the revision and rendered decision which operated to the detriment of the interest of petitioner and ordered accordingly.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the order passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation in revision does not deal with all aspects pressed before him by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the order passed is a cryptic order and does not explain by any reasoning why the finding recorded by the Settlement Officer Consolidation was vitiated by error. The impugned order also does not explain why he is not prepared to accept the appreciation recorded by the appellate authority that a wrong and unjustified inference has been drawn from the facts and must set aside as one without evidence. The attention of the consolidation authorities may be drawn as to what are the ingredients of a judicial decision. A judicial decision as held by a string of decisions consists of (1) presentation of their case by the parties to the dispute, (2) if the dispute between them is a question of fact, the ascertainment of the fact by means of evidence adduced by the parties to the dispute and often with the assistance of argument by or on behalf of the parties on the evidence, (3) if the dispute between them is a question of law, the submission of legal argument by the parties, and (4) a decision which disposes of the whole matter by a finding upon the facts in dispute and application of the law of the land to the facts so found, including where required a ruling upon any disputed question of law. A judicial decision always postulates the existence of a duty laid upon the authority to act judicially which invests it with that character. Here, the impugned order neither spells out the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties nor does it deal with all the demands raised by the learned counsel for the parties and by this reckoning, it cannot be held to be an order having all the ingredients of a judicial order passed by a quasi -judicial authority.