KHUDDI Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AZAMGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is directed against the order passed by the Deputy Director Consolidation allowing the revision filed by the opposite party and directing certain modifications which affected the petitioner as well. It is not denied that the petitioner was not a party before the Consolidation Officer or Settlement Officer Consolidation in the objection filed under section 20 by the opposite party. He was however impleaded in the 'revision the notice of which, it is stated, was never served on him. The petitioner in the circumstances could not engage a lawyer nor could he defend his case properly.

(2.) IT is true that the petitioner was present at the time of the hearing of the revision but from the facts stated in the Writ Petition and the allegations contained in the counter affidavit it is clear that he did not have a reasonable opportunity to defend his case before the Deputy Director. There was no service of notice on the petitioner. IT has been stated that the son, on whom the service was made was a minor and that too in the evening a day prior to the date on which revision was heard when the petitioner was away from the village. The Consolidation of Holdings Act or the rules do not lay down the manner in which a notice or summons has to be served except rule 26 which permits service in C. H. Form No. 6-A regarding proceedings pending under section 9. Service of notice on a minor son or daughter cannot be considered sufficient unless there is a rule to the contrary. Section 48 empowers Deputy Director Consolidation to make such order as he thinks fit after allowing parties concerned an opportunity of hearing. The words are of wide import. The mere presence or service of knowledge may not necessarily amount to allowing parties an opportunity of hearing. On the other hand even without service of any notice a party may be heard and it may be sufficient compliance both of law and natural justice. IT shall differ from case to case. No exhaustive circumstance which may lead to one or the other conclusion can be laid down. In this case the petitioner was no doubt present but there is not much difference in a party having no intimation and a party having intimation but having no opportunity to get assistance to explain his case either through a professional or himself. IT is as much a denial of opportunity of being heard as having not been heard at all.