Supreme Court of India
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL &ANR.versusSUNIL KUMAR VAISH & ORS.
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 581
- Decided
- 16 August 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- G S SINGHVI
Holding
A file noting or inter‑departmental communication is not an order of the Government and cannot be treated as such for judicial review; consequently, the High Court's order directing compensation is set aside.
Summary
The State of Uttarakhand appealed a High Court order that directed the State Government to pay Rs.70,99,951.50 as compensation to the successors of an unauthorised occupier of a leased land. The land had been declared unauthorised occupation in 1972 and the State had successfully evicted the occupier under the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972. The District Magistrate later sent an inter‑departmental communication recommending compensation, which the State Government rejected as improper. The High Court, however, treated that communication as an order of the Government and ordered payment of compensation. The Supreme Court held that a mere noting or inter‑departmental communication is not an executive order under Articles 77 and 166 and cannot be the basis for judicial review, and therefore set aside the High Court judgment, allowing the appeal.
Issues considered
- The inter‑departmental communication/noting by the District Magistrate can be treated as an order of the State Government for the purpose of directing compensation.
- Whether the High Court erred in relying on the District Magistrate's recommendation despite the State Government's rejection of it.
- Whether the finding of unauthorised occupation had attained finality and precludes further compensation.
- Whether executive actions must be expressed in the name of the President or Governor and authenticated as per Articles 77 and 166.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Administrative lawExecutive actionFile notingsInter‑departmental communicationCompensationUnauthorised occupationJudicial reviewArticles 77 and 166Reasoned judgment
Judgment
[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R 754
A STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR.
v.
SUNIL KUMAR VAISH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5374 of 2005)
AUGUST 16, 2011
B
[G.S. SINGHVI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.]
Administrative Law - Executive action - File notings -
Nature of - R' was found to be an unauthorised occupant of
C the land in question - That finding attained finality - District
Magistrate sent an inter-departmental communication to the
Secretary, State Government making recommendations for
payment of compensation to 'R' with regard to the said land
- State Government rejected the recommendations made by
D the District Magistrate for payment of compensation - Writ
petition - High Court placed reliance upon the
recommendations made by the District Magistrate in its said
earlier inter-departmental corr, '11Unication to the
Secretary, State Government and granted relief of
E compensation to respondents (the successors-in-interest of
'R} - Validity - Held: In the face of the decision taken by the
State Government, the High Court could not have relied upon
the recommendations made by the District Magistrate by
treating the same as an order of the State Government -
F Unless an order is expressed in the name of the President
or the Governor and is authenticated in the manner
prescribed by th({ rules, the same cannot be treated as an
order on behalf of the Government - A noting recorded in the
file is merely a noting simpliciter and nothing more - It merely
G represents expression of opinion by the particular individual
and cannot 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
H 754
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 755
VAISH & ORS.
and acted upon by issuing an order in accordance with Articles A
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 B
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 - Constitution of
India, 1950 - Articles 77 and 166. c
Judgment/Order - Judicial determination - Reasoned
decisions - Necessity of - Duty of Judges to give finality to
litigation - Held: Duty is cast on the judges to give finality to
the litigation so that the parties would know where they stand
- Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the D
quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality
of its reasoning - Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity
which should not be sacrificed for expediency - The
. requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to
respond to the parties' submissions and to specify the points E
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.
F
The State Government had leased out the land in
question to 'R' for agricultural purposes. The District
Magistrate determined the lease as per the lease deed
stating that the land was required by the Government for
a public purpose and directed 'R' to vacate the premises. G
'R' did not vacate the premises. The State Government
then initiated ejectment proceedings under Section 4 of
the U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1972 before the Prescribed authority
(Sub Divisional Magistrate). The Prescribed authority as
H
756 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A well as the appellate forum held against 'R'. 'R' filed Writ
petition before the High Court contending that he should
be treated as Bhumidar under the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act. High Court dismissed
the writ petition. The order of the High Court was affirmed
s by the Supreme Court.
Subsequently, the District Magistrate sent an inter·
departmental communication to the Secretary, State
Government recommending payment of compensation to
'R' with regard to the land in question. The State
C Government, however, took the view that it was improper
on the part of the District Magistrate in recommending
payment of compensation.
The matter came up before the High Court in another
D round of litigation whereupon a Division Bench of the
High Court, placing reliance on the said earlier inter-
departmental communication sent by the District
Magistrate to the Secretary, State Covernment, directed
the State Government to pay an amount of
E Rs.70,99,951.50 with interest to the successors-in-interest
of 'R' i.e. the respondents.
In the instant appeal, the question which arose for
consideration was whether relevant facts were not taken
into consideration by the High Court while granting relief
F to the respondents which caused serious prejudice to
the State Government.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
G HELD: 1. The Division Bench of the High Court had
overlooked vital facts while deciding the lis between the
parties. Non-application of mind is writ large in the order
of the High Court, not even an attempt or effort has been
made to refer to the pleadings of parties or examine the
H
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 757
VAISH & ORS.
documents produced, in spite of the fact that those A
materials were on record. [Para 13] [768-C]
2.1. Duty is cast on the judges to give finality to the
litigation so that the parties would know where they
stand. Of late, it is seen that some of the judges are averse
B
to decide the disputes when they are complex or
complicated, and would find out ways and means to
pass on the burden to their brethren or remand the
matters to the lower courts not for good reasons. Few
judges, for quick disposal, and for statistical purposes, C
get rid of the cases, driving the parties to move
representations before some authority with a direction to
that authority to decide the dispute, which the judges
should have done. Often, causes of action, which
otherwise had attained finality, resurrect, giving a fresh
causes of action. [Para 14] [768-D-F] D
2.2. Judicial determination has to be seen as an
outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated
and documented by a party based, on mainly events
which happened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and E
analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination
when parties demand it so that they can administer
justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on
law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the
parties and by the society at large, as being the result of F
a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper
' evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of
legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that
their case has been properly considered and decided.
Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the G
quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the
1
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 H
758 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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 lawfol and it
enables the society to understand the functioning of the
B judicial systefn and it also enhances the faith and
confidence of the people in the judicial system. [Para 15)
[768-G-H; 769-A-D]
2.3. The judgment in question does not satisfy the
C standards set for proper determination of disputes. These
types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious
attention is called for to enhance the quality of
adjudication of our courts. [Para 16] [769-D-E)
CONCLUSION
D
3.1. The facts clearly indicate that 'R' was an
unauthorised occupant of the land since 27.11.1972 and
that finding had attained finality and the Judges of the
High Court had failed to note the relevant documents,
E apart from the pleadings of the parties. [Para 17] [769-G]
3.2. The State Government had rightly rejected the
recommendations made by the District Magistrate for
payment of Rs.70,99,951.50 because while doing so, the
concerned officer conveniently ignored the fact that 'R'
F had already been declared as unauthorised occupant of
the land in question. In the face of the decision taken by
the State Government, the High Court could not have
relied upon the recommendations made by the District
Magistrate by treating the same as an order of the State
G Government. It is settled law that all executive actions of
the Government ot. India and the Government of a State
are required to be taken in the name of the President or
the Governor of the State concerned, as the case may be
[Articles 77(1) and 166(1 )]. Orders and other instruments
H made and executed in the name of the President or the
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 759
VAISH & ORS.
Governor of a State, as the case may be, are required to A
be authenticated in the manner specified in rules made
by the President or the Governor, as the case may be
[Articles 77(2) and 166(2)]. Unless an order is expressed
in the name of the President or the Governor and is
authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules, the B
same cannot be treated as an order on behalf of the
Government. [Para 18] [770-F-H; 771-A-B]
3.3. A noting recorded in the file is merely a noting
simpliciter and nothing more. It merely represents
expression of opinion by the particular individual. By no C
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 D
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 E
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 F
for exercise of the power of judicial review. [Para 19] [771-
C-E]
State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh AIR 1961 SC
493: 1961 SCR 371; Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR G
1963 SC 395: 1962 Suppl. SCR 713; State of Bihar v.
Kripalu Shankar (1987) 3 SCC 34; 1987 (3) SCR 1;
Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan (1993) 2 SCC 84:
1993(1) SCR 269; Sethi Auto Service Station v. DOA (2009)
1 SCC 180: 2008 (14) SCR 598; Shanti Spotts Club v. Union
of India (2009) 15 sec 705: 2009 (13) SCR 710 - relied on. H
760 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Case Law Reference:
1961 SCR 371 relied on Para 19
1962 Suppl. SCR 713 relied on Para 19
1987 (3) SCR 1 relied on Para 19
B
1993(1) SCR 269 relied on Para 19
2008 (14) SCR 598 relied on Para 19
2009 (13) SCR 710 relied on Para 19
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
5374 of 2005.
From the Judgment & Order dated 06.7.2004 of the High
Court of Uttaranchal 11t Nainital in Civil Writ Petition No. 401 of
D 2002 (MIS).
S.S. Shamshery (for J.K. Bhatia) for the Appellants.
Rakesj Kr. Khanna, Asha Jain Madan, Shivika Jain,
E Mukesh Jain, Seema Rao, Parvinder Jit Singh, Jatinder Kumar
Bhatia for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. We are, in this appeal,
F concerned with the legality of the direction given by a Division
Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital to the State
Government to pay an amount of Rs. 70,99,951.50 with interest
to the respondents, placing reliance on an inter-departmental
communication sent by the District Magistrate, Haridwar to the
G Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
2. The State of Uttaranchal (the State which has interest
now) submits that the above direction was given overlookiflg
several important and vital documents which have considerable
bearing for a proper and just determination of the dispute.
H
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 761
VAISH & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Further, it was also pointed out that the High Court had failed A
to notice that even the inter-departmental 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, B
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 C
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: D
5. Plot No. 1008 measuring 7 Big has, 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 E
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 considered favourably by
the Government and a grant/lease deed was executed on
14.9.1962 in favour of Ram Rattan Lal on certain terms and F
conditions, which are extracted hereinbelow:
1. In consideration of the sum of Rs.2742.00 (two
thousand and seven hundred and forty two only)
paid by the Grantee to Grantor, the receipt of which G
the Grantor hereby acknowledges, and of the
covenants on the part of the Grantee hereinafter
contained, the Granter hereby demises to the
Grantee. All the land described in the Scheduled
hereto to hold the said land with only the rights and H
762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A obligations akin to a Bhumidhar as defined in the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 or any statutory notification thereof. subject to
such conditions, restrictions and limitations as are
imposed under this deed.
B
2. The Grantee hereby covenants with the Grantor as
follows:-
( 1) The Grantee shall use the land granted to him
only for the purposes of cultivation and
c purposes incidental thereto, and for no other
purpose whatsoever.
(2) The Grantee's rights in the said land shall be
heritable but he shall not be entitled to
D alienate the said land without the previous
permission in writing of the Grantor.
(3) The Grantee shall pay the rent in accordance
with the hereditary rates applicable and shall
also pay taxes or cesses that may be
E imposed on the said land.
(4) In the event of any rent payable hereunder,
whether lawfully demanded or not, remaining
in arrears for months or in the event of the
F Grantee not at any time cultivating the said
land for two successive years, or if there shall
be any breach of any covenant by the
Grantee ·herein contained, the Grantor may
notwithstanding the waiver of any previous
G right or cause for re-entry, re-entry upon the
said land or any part thereof in the name of
the whole and thereafter the whole of the said
land shall remain to the use of and be vested
in the Grantor and this grant shall absolutely
determine, and the Grantee shall not be
H
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 7.63
VAISH & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
entitled to any compensation therefore or for A
any improvement made on the said land.
Provided always that should the State
Government at any time require the said
land, or any part thereof for any public
8
purpose, the Grantor may determine the
same in whole or part and may also take
possession of the whole or part, as the case
may be, and in such a case the Grantee shall
be entitled to such compensation as the
District Officer of Saharanpur may in his C
discretion assess.
(5) Notwithstanding anything herein before
contained the Grantor shall be entitled to
recover the arrears of rent due as arrears of D
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 E
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. F
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 G
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 Rattan Lal did not vacate the premises H
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A within the stipulated time and was found to be in unauthorised
occupation of the land since 27.1.1972. The State of Uttar
Pradesh then initiated ejectment proceedings under the U.P.
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) act,
1972 [for short U.P. Act XX.II of 1972] before the Sub Divisional
B Magistrate (Prescribed authority) by filing case No. 1227 of
1972 under Section 4 of the U.P. Act XXll of 1972. It was
pointed out that the State was entitled to possession since
27.1.1972 and was suffering a loss of Rs.500/- per month from
that date and that Ram Rattan Lal was liable to pay damages
c of Rs.3,000/- and also the damages till the date of delivery of
possession.
8. Ram Rattan Lal filed a detailed written statement before
the Prescribed authority. Both the parties also adduced oral as
well as documentary evidence before the Prescribed authority
D and, after detailed examination of the contentions, the
prescribed authority passed a11 order dated 13.9.1973, the
operative portion of which reads as follows:
"As provided in grant-deed dated 14.9.1962 the O.P. was
E bound to give possession to the granter in response to
notice dated 24.12. 71 which was served upon him on
27.12.71 with in a period of 30 days but he did not do so
any by violating the condition of the grant deed he remained
in unauthorised occupation over the disputed land after
27.1.72 for which he is liable to pay the damages to the
F
applicant. The applicant has demanded Rs.500/- P.M.
from the O.P. which seem to be excessive and in my
opinion the damages at the rate of Rs.150/- per month will
be reasonable and the opposite party is therefore, liable
to pay Rs.150/- as damages per month with effect from
G
27.1.72 upto the date of delivery of possession." _
9. Aggrieved by the above-mentioned order Ram Rattan
Lal preferred Misc. Appeal No.335 of 1973 before the 1st
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur and the
H Court held that the land was a public premises and Ram Rattan
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 765
VAISH & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Lal was in unauthorised occupation after the determination of A
grant and action for his eviction under the U.P. Act No. XXll of
1972 was fully justified. However, the rate of damages fixed by
the prescribed authority was reduced to Rs.60/- per month.
Aggrieved by the said order Ram Rattan Lal filed Civil Misc.
Writ No.12304 of 1975 before the High Court of judicature at B
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 c
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 XXll of 1972. The writ petition was
0
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 E
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 F·
was dispossessed from the land under the provisions of
Section 4 of the Public Premises Act, but whatever
payment as per allowance had to be made to the farmer
was not made. Therefore the Pattedar is entitled to receive
the compensation of the land. But by not paying the G
compensation amount under the Land Acquisition Act no
policy for payment of compensation to the Palla holder with
regard to the said land is given in the Patta and for
determination of the same it would be proper to hold the
stamp duty prevailing for the year 1987 in the area in H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (AODL.) S.C.R
A question as the basis of determination of compensation
amount. Hence the compensation towards the said land
admeasuring 6-14-0 Bighas i.e. 15777.67 Sq.mis. @
Rs.450/- per sqm. As per the prescribed stamp duty for
the year 1987 comes to Rs. 70,99,951.50, in which
B arrangement would have to be made by the Government
Photo Litho Press, Roorkee and the same could be
demanded from the concerned department."
12. The Government of Uttar Pradesh considered the
C communication received from the District Magistrate, Haridwar
and took the view that it was not proper on the part of the
District Magistrate in recommending payment of compensation
for the following reasons:
1. 'The Hon'ble Courts in its judgments under the
D cases in question, especially in the judgment dated
26.2.79 of the Hon'ble High Court, Patta holder has
been declared in unauthorised possession of the
land in question from 27.1.72 and compensation
amount of Rs.60/- per month has been granted to
E the State Government. Therefore, payment of
compensation amount by the State Government to
the persons in unauthorised possession of the land
is not proper.
2. Under the provisions of Section 108(Q) of the
F Transfer of Property Act, within the prescribed
period of notice of completion of Patta i.e. upto
27.1.72, Patta holder had to hand over the
possession of land in question to the State
Government, which was not given by them upto
G 6.6.87 and during that period debarred the State
Government from the use of land in question and
themselves took the benefit of the same. In this way
this. rule has been violated and the condition
mentioned in para 4 of the Palla dated 14.9.62 has
H
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 767
YAISH & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
also been violated and hence Patta Holder is not A
entitled to receive the compensation amount.
3. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court 'the
Patta holders have to pay compensation amount at
the rate of Rs.60/- per month to the State B
Government for the period they were in
unauthorised 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 C
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 D
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.
E
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 Palla would be as per condition, but the
Palla Holders had to hand over the possession of F
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
palla holders and the guilty person could not take
benefit of its own wrong. Hence the payment of
compensation amount as has been proposed by G
you is not proper.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances payment of
compensation amount to the Patta holders is
neither lawful not logical. Therefore, it is requested H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A to take action for recovery of compensation amount
of Rs.11,062/- which has to be paid by the Patta
holdes @ 601- per month for the period from
27.1.1972 to 6.6.1987 to the State Government
under the provision of point No.1 of said para 1 and
s accordingly acknowledge the government with the
action taken."
13. We are surprised to note that the Division Bench of
the High Court had overlooked the above mentioned vital facts
while deciding the lis between the parties. Non-application of
C mind is writ large in the order of the High Court, not even an
attempt or effort has been made to refer to the pleadings of
parties or examine the documents produced, in spite of the fact
that those materials were on record.
D 14. Of late, we have come across several orders which
would indicate that some of the judges are averse to decide
the disputes when they are complex or complicated, and would
find out ways and means to pass on the burden to their brethren
or remand the matters to the lower courts not for good reasons.
E Few judges, for quick disposal, and for statistical purposes, get
rid of the cases, driving the parties to move representations
before some authority with a direction to that authority to decide
the dispute, which the judges should have done. Often, causes
of action, which otherwise had attained finality, resurrect, giving
F a fresh causes of action. Duty is cast on the judges to give
finality to the litigation so that the parties would know where they
stand.
15. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome
of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and
G documented by a party based, on mainly events which
happened in the past. Courts' clear reasoning and analysis are
basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties
demand it so that they can administer justice justly and
correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial
H decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 769
VAISH & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application A
of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and
application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced
that their case has been properly considered and decided.
Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality
of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its B
reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which
should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of
reasons not or.ly 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 c
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.
D
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 E
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
F
High Court, counter affidavit filed by the State Government and
the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties
before the prescribed authority and before the higher forums.
Facts would clearly indicate that Ram Rattan Lal was an
unauthorised occupant of the land since 27.11.1972 and that G
finding had attained finality and the Judges of the High Court
had failed to note the following relevant documents, apart from
the pleadings of the parties:
1. The order of the Prescribed authority in case No. H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 12272 dated 13.9.1973, wherein there was a clear
finding that Ram Rattan Lal was an unauthorised
occupant of the disputed land from 27.11, 1972.
2. Judgment of the Court of 1st Additional and
8 Sessions· Judge, Saharanpur dated 8.11.1975 in
Misc. Appeal No. 335 of 1973 affirming the finding
that Ram Rattan Lal was an unauthorised occupant
after determination of the grant and the action for
his eviction was fully justified.
c 3. Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil
Misc. Writ No. 12304 of 1975 affirming the above
mentioned orders.
4. Order of this Court in SLP © No. 6851 of 1979
D dated 22.3.1981.
5. Letter of the Special Secretary, State of Uttar
Pradesh bearing No. 1251 PS/18-8-21 (10) PS/93
dated 25.6.1994, stating tha. the reasons stated in
inter-departmental communication dated 17.9.1993
E was improper.
18. In our view, the State Government had rightly rejected
the recommendations made by the District Magistrate for
payment of Rs. 70,99,951.50 because while doing so, the
F concerned officer conveniently ignored the fact that Ram Rattan
Lal had already been declared as unauthorised occupant of the
land in question. In the face of the decision taken by the State
Government, the High Court could not have relied upon the
recommendations made by the District Magistrate by treating
G the same as an order of the State Government. It is settled law
that all executive actions of the Government of India and the
Government of a State are required to be taken in the name of
the President or the Governor of the State concerned, as the
case may be (Articles 77(1) and 166(1)]. Orders and other
H instruments made and executed in the name of the president
STATE OF UTTARANCHAL & ANR. v. SUNIL KUMAR 771
VAISH & ORS. [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
or the Governor of a State, as the case may be, are required A
to be authenticated in the manner specified in rules made by
the President or the Governor, as the case may be [Articles
77(2) and 166(2)]. In other words, unless an order is expressed
in the name of the President or the Governor and is
authenticated in the manner prescribed by the rules, the same B
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 C
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 D
(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 E
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 Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh AIR 1961
SC 493, Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC F
395, State of Bihar v. Kripaiu Shankar (1987) 3 SCC 34,
Rajasthan Housing Board v. Shri Kishan (1993) 2 SCC 84,
Sethi Auto Service Station v. DOA (2009) 1 SCC 180 and
Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 705.
G
20. We, therefore, set aside the judgment of the High Court
in Writ Petition No. 401 of 2002 expressing our strong
disapproval. Appeal is, therefore, allowed with costs, which is
quantified as Rs.10,000/-.
B.B.B. Appeal allowed. H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Administrative law"Sign in to search