SRI SHANKER Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GHAZIABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition the prayer is that the order dated 25-9-91 (Annexure-6), passed on the application dated 26-3-90, and the order dated 6-3-90 (Annexure-5) rejecting the restoration application, in proceedings under section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. (for short the Act), for preparing reference, and the order dated 21-11-88 (Annexure-3). accepting the reference under section 48 (3) of the Act, with the observation that Horam, son of Shankar, Chak bolder no. 374 has raised objection that by accepting the reference his Chak near the boaring over plot no. 217 would not remain rectangular, are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(2.) SRI Swaraj Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in proceedings for reference the petitioner was not served with any notice, and without recording a categorical finding about the service of notice on the petitioner the subsequent two orders rejecting the restoration application, were passed. In the first two orders rejecting the restoration application, the grievance of the petitioner Shankar was that he was not heard, nor he was present on the date of hearing, i.e. 21-11-88. but an observation has been made that in place of Shankar, Chak Holder No 374, his son Horam has raised objection and was present on the date of hearing It was further urged that the petitioner did mot make signature on the order sheet, nor he was heard on the date fixed, any by making an incorrect observation about the presence of Horam, the son of petitioner, reference has been accepted by order dated 21-11-88 (Annexure-3), in proceedings under section 48 (3) of the Act, and petitioner's restoration application has incorrectly been dismissed without recording a finding that the petitioner was not heard. Reliance was placed on Nawal Kishore Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1986 ALJ 117, Kunwarpal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1986 ALJ 576 ; Suba v Mohd. Shafi, 1986 RD 180 and Nathani Singh v. Asstt. Director of Consolidation, 1990 RD 258.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, the short point that fall for determination is as to whether the petitioner was served with a notice for the date fixed and was actually heard while accepting the reference under section 48 (3) of the Act. The irresistible conclusion of the first point would be as to whether the petitioner's restoration application has correctly been dismissed Before deciding the point it is pertinent to mention that section 48 (3) of the Act Itself contemplates that the referance can be accepted only after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. No doubt the word 'may' has been employed by the Legislature about the hearing of the parties affected by the reference. But normally the word "may' is directory and in view of reference to the context, particularly when the word 'may' is used for exercising jurisdiction or following procedure by a Court, Tribunal, or Authority deciding the rights of the parties, is that situation the word 'may' means 'must,' and 'shall', and is mandatory.