(1.) Heard Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one is present on behalf of the respondents even in the revised list. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 27.7.1976 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation in Revision No. 2778/5228 (Mu. Kishun Jotiya v. Bhola). The order impugned has been challenged on the ground that the respondent no. 2 has neither filed any objection nor appeal against the allotment of chak to the petitioner. However, it appears she filed an application before the Deputy Director of Consolidation (in short D.D.C.) raising her grievance against one Sri Bhola Bhagat without raising any grievance against the petitioner. The said application, it appears, was treated as revision and was allowed by the impugned order dated 27.7.1976. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that neither the petitioner was party nor he was ever noticed and without hearing the petitioner, the impugned order was passed which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is stated that the respondent no. 2 was chak holder of Chak No. 66 in the provisional consolidation scheme and she did not file any objection or appeal. In paragraph 5, it is stated that the Plot Nos. 4709 and 4947 were the original plot of respondent no. 2 and were allotted to Sri Bhola Bhagat and Sri Bhola Bhagat was party in the revision. In paragraph 7 it is stated that the petitioner was never served with any notice of the application. The reply of paragraph 4 of the writ petition has been given in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 4. There is a vague denial without there being any concrete material establishing that the respondent no. 2 has ever filed any objection or appeal before the Settlement Officer Consolidation. There is also no specific denial with regard to the service of notice on the petitioner while passing the order by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. From the perusal of the judgment of the Deputy Director of Consolidation it do not transpire that the petitioner who happens to be chak holder of Chak No. 1052 has ever been noticed and heard. The case of the petitioner has not been considered while passing the impugned order.
(2.) I have gone through the impugned judgment. After going through the same, I am of the opinion that before passing the impugned order dated 27.7.1976 the petitioner was not heard as the specific averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition has not been denied. However, a bald statement has been made in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner has signed the order-sheet and certified copy of the order-sheet should be shown to the Court at the time of hearing. Except this, there is no material on record to indicate that the petitioner was ever noticed and heard. As neither the order-sheet has been brought on record nor anybody appeared on behalf of the respondents, therefore, in my considered opinion, the order impugned suffers from breach of principle of natural justice.
(3.) It may be noticed that in para 11 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that the respondent no. 2 has neither filed any revision nor any reference was made by any subordinate authority under subsection (3) of Section 48 of the Act. The reply of the same has been given in para 12 of the counter-affidavit in which this fact has not been denied and it is only stated that D.D.C. has very wide power to pass such order under Section 48 of the Act. I am of the opinion that there cannot be two views in this regard that the D.D.C. has very wide power under Section 48 of the Act but the power can always be exercised by the D.D.C. only under Section (1) of Section 48 either it is reference made by the subordinate authority under subsection (3) of Section 48 or revision filed under Section 48 (1). For appreciating the controversy, the language used in subsection (1) and (3) of Section 48 is reproduced hereinunder: