TULASI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER without assigning any reasons and without hearing the petitioner, the Deputy Director Consolidation in exercising his jurisdiction pertaining to Reference under Section 48 (3) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (for short the Act) can allow the Reference, Is the short question for determination in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) IT appears that the proceeding for allotment of chaks under section 20 of the Act, were finalised. There were some mistakes In the area etc, In some plots, consequently, the consolidation officer made a Reference to the Settlement officer, who in his turn made Reference to the Deputy Director of Consolidation with modification, which was to be accepted under section 48 (3) of the Act But the Reference as proposed by Asstt Settlement Officer Consolidation has been rejected and as proposed by the Consolidation Officer, it has been accepted.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent urged that the petitioner was heard and the reasons given in the impugned order was sufficient and the word 'may' used in section 48 (3) of the Act ii directory and the restoration application is pending, this court may await the result of the same. THE hearing as contemplated under section 4? Oi of ths Act means hearing only at the preliminary stage either by Asstt. Consolidation Officer or Consolidation Officer, but it doss not refer to the Deputy Director of Consolidation.