SRI KISHUN AND ORS Vs. SRI C. R. YADAVA, DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION (ADMINISTRATION), GORAKHPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14-10-1993, passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gorakhpur, by which he has directed that plot Nos. 418, 438, 443 and 750 covering an area of 35.337 hectares be deleted from New Khata No. 562 and be restored to its earlier khata No 728 in which the land which comes within the category of forest, is recorded.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition are that Tahsildar Sadar, Gorakhpur and Settlement Officer of Consolidation submitted their detailed reports with regard to the entries in khatas Nos. 562 and 728. In these reports conclusion of their enquiry was that large chunk of public property has been recorded in the name of the petitioners by manipulations and committing forgeries in revenue records. The Dy. Director after considering the position on the record thoroughly, agreed with the reports of the Tahsildar and the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and concluded that this whole episode is full of serious conspiracy and forgeries and thus has directed by the impugned order to correct the record as mentioned above and has further directed to initiate criminal proceedings against petitioners and the respondents and other persons of the revenue staff without whose connivance such kind of forgeries could not be possible. Aggrieved by this order petitioners have approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel at length. The foremost attack of the learned counsel for petitioners against the impugned order is that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and respondent Nos. 4 to 6 before passing the impugned order and the order is void and illegal being violative of principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. Learned counsel has relied on the case of Smt. Menaka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and another, AIR. 1978 SC 597. It has been further submitted that Sec. 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) contains statutory provision and the Dy. Director of Consolidation, respondent No 1, could not pass the impugned order without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The order has been passed in quasi-judicial proceedings and the same, order could be passed after providing opportunity to the petitioners as it entails serious civil consequences. Learned counsel for petitioners also submitted that in case petitioners file suit, same shall be barred by Sec. 49 of the Act and also by principles of res judicata, if the impugned order is maintained.