REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5374 OF 2005  

State of Uttaranchal & Anr.       … Appellants

Vs

Sunil Kumar Vaish & Ors.              …Respondents

 J U D G M E N T

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. We are, in this appeal, 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  Secretary,  Government  of  Uttar  

Pradesh.

2. The  State  of  Uttaranchal  (the  State  which  

has interest now) submits that the above direction

was given overlooking several important and vital  

documents  which  have  considerable  bearing  for  a  

proper  and  just  determination  of  the  dispute.  

Further,  it  was  also  pointed  out  that  the  High  

Court had failed 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, 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 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  

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  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 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.

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  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  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 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 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  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  entitled  to  any  

compensation  therefore  or  for  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  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  

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 Rattan Lal did not vacate  

the  premises  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 XXII of  

1972]  before  the  Sub  Divisional  Magistrate  

(Prescribed authority) by filing case No. 1227 of  

1972 under Section 4 of the U.P. Act XXII 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 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 and, after detailed examination of the  

contentions,  the  prescribed  authority  passed  an  

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  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  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 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 Court held that the land  

was a public premises and Ram Rattan Lal was in  

unauthorised occupation after the determination of  

grant and action for his eviction under the U.P.  

Act No. XXII 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 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 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  compensation  

amount under the Land Acquisition Act no  

policy  for  payment  of  compensation  to  

the Patta 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  

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.mts. @ Rs.450/- per sqm. As per the  

prescribed stamp duty for the year 1987  

comes  to  Rs.70,99,951.50,  in  which  

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  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 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  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 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 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  

Patta  dated  14.9.62  has  also  been  

violated and hence Patta Holder is not

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  

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  

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  amount  to  the  Patta  

holders is neither lawful not logical.  

Therefore,  it  is  requested  to  take  

action  for  recovery  of  compensation  

amount  of  Rs.11,062/-  which  has  to  be  

paid  by  the  Patta  holdes  @  60/-  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  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 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.    

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.  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 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  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 decision must be perceived by the  

parties and by the society at large, as being the  

result of 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  

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 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 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 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.  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  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.

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 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  that  the  reasons  stated  in  

inter-departmental communication dated  

17.9.1993 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  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  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 instruments made and

executed  in  the  name  of  the  president  or  the  

Governor  of  a  State,  as  the  case  may  be,  are  

required  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 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  Punjab  v.  Sodhi  

Sukhdev Singh AIR 1961 SC 493, Bachhittar Singh v.  

State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 395, State of Bihar v.  

Kripalu Shankar (1987) 3 SCC 34, Rajasthan Housing  

Board v. Shri Kishan  (1993) 2 SCC 84, Sethi Auto  

Service Station v. DDA (2009) 1 SCC 180 and Shanti  

Sports Club v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 705.

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/- .

...................J.           (G.S. Singhvi)

....................J.         (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

New Delhi August 16, 2011.