Shyam Sunder v. Director, Consolidation & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN --Respondents Present: Mr.Ashok Giri, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms.Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana Mr. AKS Goyat, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 5,7,11 to 13 Mr.Arvind Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No.10. Mr.N.P.Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.14 to 16. RAJIVE BHALLA, J: (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing order dated 06.8.2008 passed by the Director, Consolidation, Haryana, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 42 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948 has been rejected without assigning any reason. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the order passed by the Director, Consolidation, reveals that while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, no reason whatsoever much less reasons preceeded by a process of reasoning are discernable from the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, even if the Director Consolidation, has not assigned any reason, the matter may be considered on merits and dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled to any CWP No.10465 of 2009 -2- land from Beshi Abadi. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Operative para of the impugned order reads as follows:-
After the perusal of record and file. I have reached to this conclusion that the order passed by Assistant Director, Consolidation, Haryana is proper. Hence, in this situation, while upholding the order dated 10.9.2007 passed by the Director, Consolidation , Haryana, Rohtak, the present appeal is hereby rejected. The orders in this case were kept reserved. Hence, the information of the order be sent to the parties separately
. A perusal of the above extract reveals that the Director, Consolidation, has not assigned any reason much-less reasons preceeded by a process of reasoning and therefore, in our considered opinion, order passed by the Director, Consolidation is non-speaking order and must be set aside.
Consequently, we allow the writ petition in part, set aside the order dated 06.8.2008 and remit the matter to the Director, Consolidation, Haryana, for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. The appeal shall be decided within three months. The parties are directed to appear before the Director, Consolidation, Haryana, on 13.3.2012. (RAJIVE BHALLA ) JUDGE
15.2.2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1948 — s. 42.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 15 Feb 2012. The bench was RAJIVE BHALLA, RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.