SHANTI DEVI Vs. DISTRICT DEPUTY DIRECTOR CONSOLIDATION COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sanjay Goswami, learned standing counsel representing the State authorities. Since controversy involved in this petition lies in a narrow compass, both the counsel agreed to the disposal of the petition at the motion hearing stage.

(2.) Petitioners in the instant petition claim themselves to be the recipient of the land from Bhoodan Yojna Committee, Etah under Section 14 of the U. P. Bhoodan Act, 1952 the pattas in respect of which were alleged to have been executed in the year 1988-89. The validity of the order impugned herein purporting to have been passed by the District Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, has been canvassed on the ground that it has been passed in a most secretive and clandestine manner ostensibly on the basis of some reports and no opportunity whatsoever was afforded to any of the petitioners before passing the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order is not a valid order inasmuch as it not only suffers from the error of law but it has been passed sans any opportunity of hearing to the parties. He further submitted that Section 48 (3) itself envisages that parties concerned will be allowed opportunity of being heard. Lastly, it has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed in antagonism of the mandatory requirements of law. The learned standing counsel, in opposition, tried to justify the impugned order on the premise that since there was report about forged entry, the authorities were vindicated in passing the order and in the circumstanced no opportunity was required to be afforded.

(3.) I have considered the respective submissions in all pros and cons. Before proceeding further, Section 48 (3) of the Act may usefully be quoted below for acquaintance with the purport and object of the provisions :