(1.) Heard Sri I.D. Shukla holding brief of Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 and Sri R.N. Gupta appears for Gaon Sabha.
(2.) The petitioners have assailed an order dated 6.9.1999 passed by District Deputy Director of Consolidation/District Magistrate, Faizabad and the order dated 27.12.1999 modifying the said order. The impugned orders have been passed under Sec. 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding,s Act, 1953. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners' society runs educational institution in the area since 1975. On 15.11.1986, the Consolidation Committee held its meeting and reserved an area of 3 bigha 4 biswa for the use of above school established in the village under Rule 24-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules. On 29.7.1991, plots No. 293 and 637/8 were allotted to the institution. One Sri Hanuman Singh, a resident of the same village i.e. Kareru, Pargana Mangalsi, Tehsil Sohawal, District Faizabad said to be a neighbour of the institution, filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against petitioner No. 3. An application fur interim injunction was dismissed and the order of the Lower Court was upheld by Honourable High Court. The petitioners have a peaceful possession and occupation of the plot in question where a school building has been established and a playground exists for the students. The District Magistrate on the initiation of Sri Hanuman Singh, held an ex-parte enquiry. The reports of concerned officers i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer and the Revenue Authorities were sought. As per petitioners, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sohawal, Faizabad has given a report in favour of the petitioners vide report dated 23.8.1998, a copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. The District Magistrate had obtained another report from the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 3.8.1999. This report was against the petitioner. On the above said report, the District Director of Consolidation/ District Magistrate, Faizabad has exercised his jurisdiction, not vested him, in suo moto entertaining the complaint of the opposite party No.2, ignoring the specific provisions of 48(3) of the C H. Act has passed the impugned orders.
(3.) The main thrust of the petitioners is that the reference was itself not maintainable. The petitioners were not afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order affecting their rights. Moreover, copies of the reports, relied upon by the District Magistrate in support of his conclusion, were not supplied to the petitioner nor they were associated with an enquiry.