HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, NAINITAL Writ Petition No.237 of 2010 (M/S) Bhuwan Chandra Kapil S/o late Sri Durga Dutta Kapil ……… Petitioner Versus Chandra Shekhar Kapil and others ……… Respondents. Dated:- 06th July, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. M. C. Pandey, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Joshi, the learned counsel for the private respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 2009 passed by the Assistant Collector by which the application of the opposite party was allowed and is also aggrieved by the order of the revisional court by which its revision was dismissed as not maintainable. It transpires that the petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act for declaration alleging that he has become the sole bhumidhar of the land in question pursuant to a will dated 03rd July, 1973 executed by Sri Bhola Dutta in his favour. It is alleged that in the suit, evidence has been led and the will has been proved by the production of the attesting witnesses, and the scribe, but, notwithstanding the aforesaid, the opposite party moved an application praying that the signatures of the attestor may be verified through an expert. This application was allowed by an order dated 20th January, 2009 against which a revision was filed, which was dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the order of the Assistant Collector dated 20th January, 2009, the court finds that no reasons has been given as to why the said application has been allowed. Only one word “allowed” has been 2 written in the said order. In my opinion, the authority, being a quasi- judicial authority, should give reasons before allowing or dismissing an application. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20th January, 2009 cannot be sustained and is quashed. The consequential order passed in the revision dated 29.01.2010 is also quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Assistant Collector to decide the application of the defendant opposite parties afresh by a reasoned and speaking order, after hearing all parties concerned. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 06.07.2010 LSR