IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 10 of 2000 Date of decision: 26.6.2008 Kishan Chand and ors. Petitioners. Versus State of H.P and others. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. . For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No.1. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General For respondent Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. No. 2(i) and 5 to 8. Deepak Gupta, J. (oral) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, dated 19.1.2000, whereby he has allowed the Revision petitions filed by one Shri Thola and another filed by Nikka Ram. Both the petitions were decided by a common order. I find that in the first two pages of the order the learned Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, has only given the facts of the case relating to the filing of the petition and details of the various parties who were 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 present before him. He has also mentioned that two petitions have been filed in respect of the same Khasra number and therefore, a joint order has been passed. Thereafter, the learned Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings has set-aside the order of the Consolidation Officer and the only reason given in the order reads as follows:- “From the perusal of record and pleading of parties it was found that Khasra No. 796 and Khasra No. 748 have been wrongly deleted from Shri Rulia Ram and Sh. Nikka Ram, respectively. In fact, Khasra No. 795 west belongs to Shri Rulia Ram and 795 east to Shri Kishan Chand and Khasra No. 748 to Shri Nikka Ram. In order to make the allotment confirm to that on the spot, the following amendment is hereby ordered to be made in the revenue record.” A bare perusal of this order shows that the learned Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, has not dealt with the reasoning given by the Consolidation Officer. The order of Consolidation Officer may be right or wrong, but if the order is to be set-aside the revisional authority was required to point out the infirmities in the impugned order and the reasons for setting aside the same. The perusal of the operative portion of the order does not show what are the reasons which weighed with the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings. 3 This Court has repeatedly held that all judicial authorities must give reasons while passing their orders. A judicial order must be couched in language stating the reasons which have weighed with the Officer while passing the order. Merely stating the conclusion is not sufficient. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that reasons are the essence of any judicial order. A bare reading of the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, shows that there was no effort made to analyse the various points raised. It is not necessary in exercise of revisional jurisdiction to give detailed facts of the case. However, reference must be made to the relevant portion of the scheme, contentions of the parties and whether the order of the Officer which is under challenge is legal or not. The questions involved was not trivial. Rights of the parties are involved. The Additional Director of Consolidation was required to give reasons, which he has failed to do so. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. Without reasons, it is impossible for this Court to adjudicate as to whether the order of the Director is correct or not. Since this has not been done, the order of the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, cannot be sustained and the same is set- aside. 4 The Case is remanded to the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, who shall decide the same afresh after giving opportunity to the parties of being heard. The parties who are present before this Court are directed to appear before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, on 2nd August, 2008. The Director, Consolidation shall issue notices to the other affected parties and shall make an earnest endeavour to decide the revision petition as early as possible and in any event not later than 31st March, 2009. This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Director, Consolidation of Holdings, after remand shall decide the case on its own merits. 26th June, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™