High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Geeta @ Munni Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Narain Srivastava,Chitrangada Narayan,Vartika Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Shri Anurag Narain Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Ravi Shankar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed the following relief:- "I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present dispute pertains to the property, which was recorded in the name of Suresh Pal, who was grand-father of petitioners no. 2 to 4 and it has further been stated that Ajay Kumar son of Suresh Pal has died and petitioners no. 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of late Ajay Kumar.

4. It has further been stated that Suresh Pal bequeath his property and gave half share to his younger brother's wife Chandrawati, respondent no.2 and 1/4th share to his son Vijay Kumar (respondent no.3) and 1/4th share was given to the petitioners being the legal heirs of his predeceased son, Ajay Kumar. During the consolidation operations, the petitioners no.2 to 4 were minor and petitioner no.1 being illiterate lady, the petitioners had taken land adjacent to Kachcha Rasta of village. Subsequently the Kachcha Road Rasta was converted into regular damar road and that became bone of contentions between the legal heirs of Suresh Pal and a revision under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, was filed after 12 years, before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

5. It has further been submitted that no notices were issued on the application for condonation of delay but the petitioners, who were opposite parties in the said revision, have put in appearance and filed a detailed objections in the application for condonation of delay and also contested the said revision on merits. It is after hearing the parties, the revision came to be decided, by means of the impugned order dated 26.9.2024.

6. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that despite being delay of 12 years and detailed objections having been filed, the delay was condoned in a most cursory manner without considering and recording the objections, filed by the practitioners and even recording the satisfaction with regard to the sufficient cause and accordingly submits that the impugned order has been passed without any opportunity of hearing, application of mind, is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed by this Court.

7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has been called upon in the present case to determine as to whether such a non speaking order bereft of any reasoning can be sustained.

8. In order to consider aforesaid aspect, it has to be considered as to whether giving reasons is essential or not. The Apex Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 594, has held that giving of reasons is a part of natural justice and it is the reasons which disclose the mind of the authority who is taken the decision. In order to indicate that there has been application of mind the said order should contain reasons before taken such a decision.The Court has held as under :- "39. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action". As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case.

40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision."

9. It is well settled that an order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. Highlighting this rule, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566 para 31 to 33 as under : "31. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice - delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. " [Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar (JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC 338:2004 (5) SCC 573].

32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328; Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 513; and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422].

33.Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as why his application has been rejected."

10. Non recording of reasons, non consideration of admissible evidence or consideration of inadmissible evidence renders the order to be unsustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi , 2011(269)E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), held as under : "8. ….It needs to be emphasised that every litigant, who approaches the court for relief is entitled to know the reason for acceptance or rejection of his prayer, particularly when either of the parties to the lis has a right of further appeal. Unless the litigant is made aware of the reasons which weighed with the court in denying him the relief prayed for, the remedy of appeal will not be meaningful. It is that reasoning, which can be subjected to examination at the higher forums. In State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar2 this Court, while reiterating that reason is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless, observed thus : "8.......Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made;......."

11. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568 while dealing with the criminal appeal, insisted that the reasons in support of the decision was a cardinal principle and the High Court should record its reasons while disposing of the matter. The Court held as under: "8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971)2 QB 175, observed:(QB p.191 C) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice." "Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance."

12. Following this very view, the Supreme Court in another judgment delivered on 22-02-2008, in State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain, (2008)15 SSC 711 stated that 'reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.'

13. Providing of reasons in orders is of essence in judicial proceedings. Every litigant who approaches the Court with a prayer is entitled to know the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such request. Either of the parties to the lis has a right of appeal and, therefore, it is essential for them to know the considered opinion of the Court to make the remedy of appeal meaningful. It is the reasoning which ultimately culminates into final decision which may be subject to examination of the appellate or other higher Courts. It is not only desirable but, in view of the consistent position of law, mandatory for the Court to pass orders while recording reasons in support thereof, however, brief they may be. Brevity in reasoning cannot be understood in legal parlance as absence of reasons. While no reasoning in support of judicial orders is impermissible, the brief reasoning would suffice to meet the ends of justice at least at the interlocutory stages and would render the remedy of appeal purposeful and meaningful. It is a settled canon of legal jurisprudence that the Courts are vested with discretionary powers but such powers are to be exercised judiciously, equitably and in consonance with the settled principles of law. Whether or not, such judicial discretion has been exercised in accordance with the accepted norms, can only be reflected by the reasons recorded in the order impugned before the higher Court. Often it is said that absence of reasoning may ipso facto indicate whimsical exercise of judicial discretion. Patricia Wald, Chief Justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Article, "The problem with the Courts: Black-robed Bureaucracy Or Collegiality Under Challenge" 42 Md.L. Rev. 766, 782 (1983), observed as under:- 'My own guiding principle is that virtually every appellate decision requires some statement of reasons. The discipline of writing even a few sentences or paragraphs explaining the basis for the judgment insures a level of thought and scrutiny by the Court that a bare signal of affirmance, dismissal, or reversal does not.'

14. Shri Ravi Shankar Singh, appearing on behalf of private respondents has opposed the writ petition, but does not dispute the said fact.

15. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that the Authority, who is acting in judicial or quasi judicial manner, is duty bound to consider all the issues raised before him. In the present case a revision was filed after a delay of 12 years and was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, the petitioners, who were the respondents in the said revision, had opposed the said application and filed their objections in the application for condonation of delay.

16. It is in the said circumstance, the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have considered the reasons given for condoning the delay, apart from considering the objections, raised by the petitioner. It is after duly considering the rival contentions, should have arrived to his satisfaction and conclusion whether to allow the application for condonation of delay or to reject the same. Merely writing one line that the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is allowed, does not serve the purpose or fall within the ambit of a reasoned order.

17. It is for the aforesaid reasons, interference is called for in the impugned order, in as much as, the application for condonation of delay nor the objections have been considered. Accordingly the order dated 26.09.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Hardoi, for consideration afresh. In the remand proceedings which shall duly be considered, filed by the petitioners and give adequate reasons for allowing or rejecting the same. The parties have consented to appear before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on any date fixed, within the next one month and argue the application for condonation of delay.

18. Let the said application be finally decided, within the maximum period of two months, from the date, a certified copy of the order is produced, in accordance with law.

19. The aforesaid directions, this petition stands allowed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Muk MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Smt. Geeta @ Munni Devi And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Hardoi And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Narain Srivastava,Chitrangada Narayan,Vartika Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard Shri Anurag Narain Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent no.1 and Ravi Shankar Singh, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3.

2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed the following relief:- "I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the present dispute pertains to the property, which was recorded in the name of Suresh Pal, who was grand-father of petitioners no. 2 to 4 and it has further been stated that Ajay Kumar son of Suresh Pal has died and petitioners no. 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of late Ajay Kumar.

4. It has further been stated that Suresh Pal bequeath his property and gave half share to his younger brother's wife Chandrawati, respondent no.2 and 1/4th share to his son Vijay Kumar (respondent no.3) and 1/4th share was given to the petitioners being the legal heirs of his predeceased son, Ajay Kumar. During the consolidation operations, the petitioners no.2 to 4 were minor and petitioner no.1 being illiterate lady, the petitioners had taken land adjacent to Kachcha Rasta of village. Subsequently the Kachcha Road Rasta was converted into regular damar road and that became bone of contentions between the legal heirs of Suresh Pal and a revision under Section 48 of Consolidation of Holdings Act, was filed after 12 years, before the Deputy Director of Consolidation.

5. It has further been submitted that no notices were issued on the application for condonation of delay but the petitioners, who were opposite parties in the said revision, have put in appearance and filed a detailed objections in the application for condonation of delay and also contested the said revision on merits. It is after hearing the parties, the revision came to be decided, by means of the impugned order dated 26.9.2024.

6. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that despite being delay of 12 years and detailed objections having been filed, the delay was condoned in a most cursory manner without considering and recording the objections, filed by the practitioners and even recording the satisfaction with regard to the sufficient cause and accordingly submits that the impugned order has been passed without any opportunity of hearing, application of mind, is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed by this Court.

7. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court has been called upon in the present case to determine as to whether such a non speaking order bereft of any reasoning can be sustained.

8. In order to consider aforesaid aspect, it has to be considered as to whether giving reasons is essential or not. The Apex Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, (1991) 4 SCC 594, has held that giving of reasons is a part of natural justice and it is the reasons which disclose the mind of the authority who is taken the decision. In order to indicate that there has been application of mind the said order should contain reasons before taken such a decision.The Court has held as under :- "39. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action". As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The extent of their application depends upon the particular statutory framework whereunder jurisdiction has been conferred on the administrative authority. With regard to the exercise of a particular power by an administrative authority including exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions the legislature, while conferring the said power, may feel that it would not be in the larger public interest that the reasons for the order passed by the administrative authority be recorded in the order and be communicated to the aggrieved party and it may dispense with such a requirement. It may do so by making an express provision to that effect as those contained in the Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 of U.S.A. and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, 1977 of Australia whereby the orders passed by certain specified authorities are excluded from the ambit of the enactment. Such an exclusion can also arise by necessary implication from the nature of the subject matter, the scheme and the provisions of the enactment. The public interest underlying such a provision would outweigh the salutary purpose served by the requirement to record the reasons. The said requirement cannot, therefore, be insisted upon in such a case.

40. For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision."

9. It is well settled that an order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice. Highlighting this rule, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566 para 31 to 33 as under : "31. It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the Court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration justice - delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the Court and also as an essential requisite of principles of natural justice. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had really applied its mind. " [Vide State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar (JT 2004(2) SC 172 and State of Rajasthan Vs. Sohan Lal & Ors. JT 2004 (5) SCC 338:2004 (5) SCC 573].

32. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 4664; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407; State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328; Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 513; and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram & Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422].

33.Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as why his application has been rejected."

10. Non recording of reasons, non consideration of admissible evidence or consideration of inadmissible evidence renders the order to be unsustainable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi , 2011(269)E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), held as under : "8. ….It needs to be emphasised that every litigant, who approaches the court for relief is entitled to know the reason for acceptance or rejection of his prayer, particularly when either of the parties to the lis has a right of further appeal. Unless the litigant is made aware of the reasons which weighed with the court in denying him the relief prayed for, the remedy of appeal will not be meaningful. It is that reasoning, which can be subjected to examination at the higher forums. In State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar2 this Court, while reiterating that reason is the heart beat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless, observed thus : "8.......Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made;......."

11. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar (2004) 5 SCC 568 while dealing with the criminal appeal, insisted that the reasons in support of the decision was a cardinal principle and the High Court should record its reasons while disposing of the matter. The Court held as under: "8. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. In Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971)2 QB 175, observed:(QB p.191 C) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice." "Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance."

12. Following this very view, the Supreme Court in another judgment delivered on 22-02-2008, in State of Rajasthan v. Rajendra Prasad Jain, (2008)15 SSC 711 stated that 'reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.'

13. Providing of reasons in orders is of essence in judicial proceedings. Every litigant who approaches the Court with a prayer is entitled to know the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such request. Either of the parties to the lis has a right of appeal and, therefore, it is essential for them to know the considered opinion of the Court to make the remedy of appeal meaningful. It is the reasoning which ultimately culminates into final decision which may be subject to examination of the appellate or other higher Courts. It is not only desirable but, in view of the consistent position of law, mandatory for the Court to pass orders while recording reasons in support thereof, however, brief they may be. Brevity in reasoning cannot be understood in legal parlance as absence of reasons. While no reasoning in support of judicial orders is impermissible, the brief reasoning would suffice to meet the ends of justice at least at the interlocutory stages and would render the remedy of appeal purposeful and meaningful. It is a settled canon of legal jurisprudence that the Courts are vested with discretionary powers but such powers are to be exercised judiciously, equitably and in consonance with the settled principles of law. Whether or not, such judicial discretion has been exercised in accordance with the accepted norms, can only be reflected by the reasons recorded in the order impugned before the higher Court. Often it is said that absence of reasoning may ipso facto indicate whimsical exercise of judicial discretion. Patricia Wald, Chief Justice of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the Article, "The problem with the Courts: Black-robed Bureaucracy Or Collegiality Under Challenge" 42 Md.L. Rev. 766, 782 (1983), observed as under:- 'My own guiding principle is that virtually every appellate decision requires some statement of reasons. The discipline of writing even a few sentences or paragraphs explaining the basis for the judgment insures a level of thought and scrutiny by the Court that a bare signal of affirmance, dismissal, or reversal does not.'

14. Shri Ravi Shankar Singh, appearing on behalf of private respondents has opposed the writ petition, but does not dispute the said fact.

15. Considering the rival submissions, it is noticed that the Authority, who is acting in judicial or quasi judicial manner, is duty bound to consider all the issues raised before him. In the present case a revision was filed after a delay of 12 years and was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, the petitioners, who were the respondents in the said revision, had opposed the said application and filed their objections in the application for condonation of delay.

16. It is in the said circumstance, the Deputy Director of Consolidation should have considered the reasons given for condoning the delay, apart from considering the objections, raised by the petitioner. It is after duly considering the rival contentions, should have arrived to his satisfaction and conclusion whether to allow the application for condonation of delay or to reject the same. Merely writing one line that the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act is allowed, does not serve the purpose or fall within the ambit of a reasoned order.

17. It is for the aforesaid reasons, interference is called for in the impugned order, in as much as, the application for condonation of delay nor the objections have been considered. Accordingly the order dated 26.09.2024 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Hardoi, for consideration afresh. In the remand proceedings which shall duly be considered, filed by the petitioners and give adequate reasons for allowing or rejecting the same. The parties have consented to appear before the Deputy Director of Consolidation on any date fixed, within the next one month and argue the application for condonation of delay.

18. Let the said application be finally decided, within the maximum period of two months, from the date, a certified copy of the order is produced, in accordance with law.

19. The aforesaid directions, this petition stands allowed. . (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Muk MOHD UMAR KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench