SATRUJEET Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) passed in proceedings for allotment of chaks, Ram Nidhi, Respondent No. 2, and others filed a revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of. Holdings Act. Babu Ram and Dubri, who had been allotted chak No. 33, were impleaded as opposite parties to the revision. But Raja Ram, who had also been allotted chak No. 33 jointly with Dubri and Babu Ram, was not impleaded. Summonses of the revision were, in the normal course, issued to Dubri and Babu Ram alone. It is not disputed that Raja Ram or his heirs were not afforded an opportunity of being heard before the disposal of the revision.

(2.) IT appears that Raja Ram was dead. His heirs filed a writ petition in this Court and urged that the order passed by the Deputy Director changing the allotment of chaks made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) was without jurisdiction because Raja Ram had not been afforded an opportunity of being heard. Raja Ram was a necessary party because he had been allotted chak No. 33 along with other persons. Since the revision involved variation of that chak, he was a party concerned within meaning of Section 48 of the Act. In support, reliance was placed upon Sheo Prasad v. Chhoteylal, 1966 R.D. 375. The Respondents invited the attention of the learned single Judge to Syed Mohd. Reyaz v. Dy. D.C. Mathura, 1971 R.D. 305 where a slightly different view was taken. In view of this conflict, the learned single Judge referred the writ petition to a Division Bench. That is how the matter has been placed before us.

(3.) SECTION 48(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act provides: