HITENDER PAUL Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, Himachal Pradesh, exercising the powers of the State Government under Section 54 of the H.P. Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order, Annexure P-E, passed by the Director of Consolidation, is a non- speaking order and does not consider the record or examine the contentions which have been raised by the petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONER submits that during consolidation, he has been allotted Khasra No.356 adjoining to Khasra No.355, which is owned by the opposite party Tek Chand. The petitioner is in possession of Khasra No.314 and has constructed a major portion of his building. An application, Annexure PA, to the writ petition was made by the petitioner to the Consolidation Officer requesting that his possession over Khasra No.314 be maintained and the allotment of Khasra No.356 be cancelled leaving such possession with respondent Tek Chand. These objections under Section 30(1) of the H.P Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were not accepted by the Consolidation Officer, Mandi.

(3.) ON going through the record, I find that the Director of Consolidation has passed the impugned order with the observations that if the request of the applicant is acceded to, the land of both the parties will be fragmented. The order passed is a terse, four line order. It is by now well settled that any order affecting the rights of the parties, which is passed either by a statutory or quasi judicial authority, has to be a speaking and reasoned order. Mere recitation of words that a particular state of affairs exists without enumerating the circumstances for the reasons, cannot be called a reasoned order. A reading of the order does not show as to how the Director of Consolidation has applied his mind to the submissions made before him and the material on record. It is well settled that passing a speaking and reasoned order, is now a part of our constitutional jurisprudence.