TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the High Court had failed to notice that even the interdepartmental communication was found to be improper by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. 3. Mr. S.S. Shamshery, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Uttaranchal referred to the pleadings of the parties, documents produced and submitted those relevant facts were not taken into consideration by the High Court while granting relief to the Respondents causing serious prejudice to the State. 4. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, submitted that there is no legality in the order passed by the High Court warranting interference by this Court and that no substantial questions of law arise for consideration and the appeal deserves dismissal. FACTS: 5. Plot No. 1008 measuring 7 Bighas, 14 Biswas situated at Rampur Colony, Roorkee, originally belonged to the grand-father of the Respondents Late Ram Rattan Lal, was acquired for rehabilitation of refugee camp at Roorkee and the amount of compensation for the acquisition was paid to Ram Rattan Lal on 13.3.1952. On 14.9.1962 Ram Rattan Lal made a request to the Government to lease out the said land for agricultural purposes. Request was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such compensation as the District Officer of Saharanpur may in his discretion assess. (5) Notwithstanding anything herein before contained the Grantor shall be entitled to recover the arrears of rent due as arrears of land revenue. (6) The stamp duty and registration charges on this deed shall be borne by the Grantee. 6. Apprehending forcible dispossession, Ram Rattan Lal filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 1974 of 1967 before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court allowed the writ petition on 26.8.1982 restraining the State Government from forcibly dispossessing him, though it was found that the land in question was acquired by the Government under Section 9 of the U.P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 1948. 7. The District Magistrate, Saharanpur accordingly vide his proceeding dated 24.12.1971 determined the lease as per Clause 4 of the lease deed dated 14.9.1962 stating that the land was required by the Government for a public purpose i.e. for construction of a building for the use of a Government Litho Press at Roorkee. Ram Rattan Lal was, therefore, directed to vacate the premises within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of notice. Ram Rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt of judicature at Allahabad. Before the High Court, the contention was raised that Ram Rattan Lal should be treated as Bhumidar under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Lad Reforms Act. High Court rejected all those contentions and held that Ram Rattan Lal had not acquired the rights of a Bhumidar under any of the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and was not a tenure holder under any of the clauses mentioned in Section 129 of the aforesaid Act and held that the step taken for eviction in respect of Ram Rattan Lal was fully justified under U.P. Act XXII of 1972. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed with costs. 10. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court Ram Rattan Lal approached this Court and filed SLP(C) No. 6851 of 1979 and the same was also dismissed by this Court on 23.12.1981 11. District Magistrate, Haridwar, without referring to any of those facts, sent a communication dated 17.9.1993 to the Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh stating as under: As per the conditions mentioned in the Patta, Pattedar was dispossessed from the land under the provisions of Section 4 of the Public Premises Act, but whatever payment as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thorised possession of the land. In such circumstances, payment of compensation amount to them by the State Government, when conditions of Patta dated 14.9.62 has been violated, is not proper. 4. Land in question was acquired in the year 1948. Payment of compensation in regard to the land acquired was made by the State Government at that time itself and this compensation was paid to one of the members of Patta holder family as per the condition then was. Hence for the second time payment of compensation amount pertaining to the same land on the same basis is not as per the law. 5. Under the condition mentioned in para 4 of the Patta deed dated 14.09.1962 payment of compensation amount had to make upto 27.1.1972 then the Patta would be as per condition, but the Patta Holders had to hand over the possession of land to the State Government upto 27.1.1972 but the same was not given upto 6.6.87 and situation changed and responsibility of this fault was on the patta holders and the guilty person could not take benefit of its own wrong. Hence the payment of compensation amount as has been proposed by you is not proper. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances payment of compensation amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to the parties' submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system. 16. We are sorry to say that the judgment in question does not satisfy the above standards set for proper determination of disputes. Needless to say these types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality of adjudication of our courts. Public trust and confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the direct experience of citizens from the judicial adjudication of their disputes. CONCLUSION 17. We have gone through the writ petition filed before the High Court, counter affidavit filed by the State Government and the oral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t or the Governor and is authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules, the same cannot be treated as an order on behalf of the Government. 19. A nothing recorded in the file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no stretch of imagination, such noting can be treated as a decision of the Government. Even if the competent authority records its opinion in the file on the merits of the matter under consideration, the same cannot be termed as a decision of the Government unless it is sanctified and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles 77(1) and (2) or Articles 166(1) and (2). The noting in the file or even a decision gets culminated into an order affecting right of the parties only when it is expressed in the name of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, and authenticated in the manner provided in Article 77(2) or Article 166(2). A noting or even a decision recorded in the file can always be reviewed/reversed/overruled or overturned and the court cannot take cognizance of the earlier noting or decision for exercise of the power of judicial review. State of P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
