LAWS(P&H)-1982-1-95

RAM SINGH Vs. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR

Decided On January 11, 1982
RAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has arisen out of the consolidation proceedings which took place in the village in the year 1969. It is alleged that the writ petitioner and respondent No. 4 filed certain objections under Section 21(2) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation & Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the Act) against the repartition and the Consolidation Officer vide his order dated 21st March, 1969 (Annexure 'A') allotted Kila numbers in dispute to the respondents No. 4 and 5. On appeal filed by the writ petitioner, the Settlement Officer gave Kila Nos. 17/24/2 and 19/4/2 to the writ petitioner and the order of the Consolidation Officer was set aside. Respondents 4 and 5 under Section 42 of the Act went to the Additional Director, who remanded the case to the Settlement Officer, but the Settlement Officer again upheld his earlier order. Dissatisfied with the order, respondents 4 and 5 again went in revision under Section 42 of the Act and the Additional Director then set aside the Settlement Officer's order and withdrew Killa No. 19/6/2 to them. Hence this petition against the impugned order of the Additional Director.

(2.) The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Additional Director has passed a cryptic order and no reasons have been given.

(3.) I have gone through the order and I find that the Additional Director has not given reasons. He has only observed that the order of the Settlement Officer was not justified. As to how it was not justified, he has not given any reasons. The Settlement Officer, after giving detailed reasons, has passed a detailed order. It is settled law that the Appellate Authority or the revisional authority must meet the reasoning of the subordinate authority, if it has to set aside its order or has to take a different view. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the Additional Director is directed to redecide the matter after hearing the parties in the light of the aforesaid observations. However, there will be no order as to costs.