Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17350 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 259 of 2025 Petitioner :- Swami Nath Respondent :- Settlement Officer Of Consolidation, Shrawasti And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bajrangi Lal Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. 1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to amend the prayer clause during the course of the day. 2. In view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make necessary amendments in the prayer clause during course of the day. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and perused the material brought on record. 4. In view of the order proposed to be passed, after taking note of the fact that the interim relief sought by the petitioner has been rejected without recording reasons, which are required in view of the settled principles of law (vide CCT Vs. Shukla & Bros., (2010) 4 SCC 785 considered in Civil Appeal No.3465 of 2023 (State Project Director, U.P. Education for All Project Board & others Vs. Saroj Maurya & others, decided on 21.08.2024 and Ircon International Limited Thru. General Manager Vs. Deepak Yadav, 2019 SCC OnLine All 4239, the notice to opposite party no.3 to 10 is dispensed with. 5. In the instant petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.12.2024 passed on an application dated 12.12.2024 to the extent it has rejected the interim protection/interim relief sought in the application dated 12.12.2024. The relevant portion of order dated 27.12.2024 reads as under :- "ममेरमे दद्वारद्वा उपससस्थित पकक्षों कमे वविदद्वान अधधिविकद्वा गण ककी बहस ससुननी गयनी एविवं पतद्वाविलनी कद्वा अविललोकन वकयद्वा गयद्वा। पतद्वाविलनी कमे अविललोकन समे सपष्ट हह, वक प्रश्नगत अपनील चकबन्दनी अधधिकद्वारनी इककौनद्वा कमे विद्वाद सवंख्यद्वा- 0005/2015 आदमेश वदनद्वावंक 22-11-2024 कमे वविरुद्ध यलोधजित हह। धजिसमम अपनीलद्वाण्ट सविद्वामनीनद्वास्थि दद्वारद्वा सस्थिगन प्रद्वास्थिरनद्वा-पत प्रसतसुत कर मद्वामाँग वकयद्वा गयद्वा हह , वक अपनील कमे वनसतद्वारण तक आदमेश वदनद्वावंक 22-11- 2024 कद्वा वक्रियद्वान्वियन एविवं प्रभद्वावि सस्थिवगत वकयद्वा जिद्वाय स्थिद्वा उत्तरदद्वातद्वा चन्दद्वावितनी कसुवं विरर दद्वारद्वा प्रद्वास्थिरनद्वा -पत वदनद्वावंक 23-12-2024 प्रसतसुत कर मद्वामाँग वकयद्वा गयद्वा हह वक अपनील ककी पलोषणनीयतद्वा कद्वा वनसतद्वारण सविरप्रस्थिम वकयद्वा जिद्वाय तस्थिद्वा सस्थिगन प्रद्वास्थिरनद्वा-पत वि अपनील कर आपधत्त प्रसतसुत वकयद्वा हह। पकक्षों दद्वारद्वा प्रसतसुत प्रद्वास्थिरनद्वा-पत कमे अविललोकन वि तकरवं कलो ससुननमे कमे उपरद्वान्त मम इस वनकषर पर पहहमाँचतद्वा हहमाँ वक चकबन्दनी अधधिकद्वारनी दद्वारद्वा पद्वाररत आदमेश वदनद्वावंक 22-11-2024 पकक्षों कलो ससुनकर गसुण-दलोष पर पद्वाररत हह इसधलए आदमेश वदनद्वावंक 22- 11-2024 सस्थिवगत वकयद्वा जिद्वानद्वा न्यद्वायलोवचत प्रतनीत नहहीं हलोतद्वा हह। जिहद्वामाँ तक पलोषणनीयतद्वा कद्वा प्रश्न हह तलो ममूल पतद्वाविलनी तलबनी कमे पश्चद्वात समसत वबन्दसु कद्वा वनसतद्वारण वकयद्वा जिद्वानद्वा न्यद्वायलोवचत हलोगद्वा। तदनसुसद्वार सस्थिगन प्रद्वास्थिरनद्वा-पत वि पलोषणनीयतद्वा कद्वा प्रद्वास्थिरनद्वा -पत वनसतद्वाररत वकयद्वा जिद्वातद्वा हह। पतद्वाविलनी अविर न्यद्वायद्वालय ककी पतद्वाविलनी तलब हलोकर विद्वासतमे बहस वदनद्वावंक 04-01-25 कलो पमेश हलो।" 6. Impeaching the order dated 27.12.2024 to the extent it has rejected the application dated 12.12.2024 seeking interim protection, it is stated that as per the area and the number indicated in the sale deed(s) dated 06.07.1981 executed by Smt. Rajpyari in favour of the petitioner- Swaminath and Chandrapali- predecessor- in-interest of opposite party nos.3 to 10 namely Smt. Chandrawati Kunwari w/o Girdhar Gopal, Bajrangi, Jawahar Lal, Rajendra Prasad and Ziledar all sons of late Gopi Nath, Smt. Buhnaga Devi widow of late Gopi nath, Smt. Sheela Devi widow of late Hawaldar and Suraj minor son of late Hawaldar who is represented through his guardian Smt. Sheela Devi in which opposite party no.3 – Smt. Chandrawati had raised the claim before the Consolidation Officer being the successor of Rajpyari, would indicate that the area indicated in the order dated 22.11.2024 passed by Consolidation Officer, Ikauna in Case No.0005 of 2015, Computerized Case No.2015550862020005 (Chandrawati Kunwari Vs. Swaminath) under Section 9(A)2 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'Act 1953') as also area of Gata No.575-B in the revenue records at relevant point of time was 6.180 acre and in this area if the area of canal, i.e. 2.230 acre and the area transferred by the petitioner, i.e. 0.200 acre. to Baccharaj through registered sale deed is substracted then in that eventuality the area of Gata No.575-B would come to 2.250 hect. and this aspect of the case as also the fact that sale deed favourable to Chattrapali was executed by Smt. Rajpyari with regard to Gata No.575-A was not taken note of while rejecting the prayer seeking interim protection and as such the order is non-speaking and requires interference. 7. Considering the aforesaid including the observations made in the judgment(s) referred above, according to which even the administrative authority is required to record reasons, this Court finds that interference in this matter is required. 8. Accordingly, order dated 27.12.2024 to the extent of rejecting the prayer sought in the application dated 12.12.2024 seeking interim protection is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the authority concerned who shall pass the reasoned and speaking order after considering the facts of the case including the facts indicated in the objections filed by the side opposite and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, if possible on the next date fixed in the case and if on the next date, for some reasons, Application 12.12.2024 could not be disposed of finally the same be disposed of within 15 days thereafter. 9. The petition is accordingly allowed. Cost made easy. Order Date :- 26.3.2025 Anand/- Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench