ZAKAHULLAH Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the parties concerned in a Reference under Section 48 (3) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, (for short the Act), is the short point for determination in this petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts are almost admitted. By the impugned order dated 5-5-92, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has accepted the Reference under Section 48 (3) (Forty Eight-sub clause three) of the Act in pursuance of the order of Consolidation Officer dated 26-9-91, which was passed in respect of some area of plot no. 12/L area. 021 having been kept est of consolidation operations. THE application initiating Reference under Section 48 (3) of the Act appears to have been made by Ghamndi, father of respondent no. 4 and the Reference has been accepted. THE Consolidation Officer made reference to the Settlement Officer (Consolidation), who in his turn, referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Consolidation, who thereafter passed the impugned order.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, there are two points which fall for determination. First is as to whether provisions of Section 48 (3) of the Act was mandatory or directory, and the next is whether the principles of natural justice have been violated Ex abundanti cautela, the provisions of Section 48 (3) of the Act are set out below: "48 (3). Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for fiction under sub section (1)