V.D. Bhargava, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by three persons for quashing an order of the Dy. Director of Consolidation, Bulandshahr dated 24 -6 -57 and that of the Settlement Officer dated 24 -12 -56.
(2.) ACCORDING to the Petitioners, in pursuance of consolidation operations, chak No. 14 which consisted of plots Nos. 145, 146, 59, 142, 157 and 158, was given to the Petitioners and opposite party No. 3 was allotted chak No. 8 consisting of plots Nos. 112/113/1, 113/2 and 114 in Block B. Opposite party No. 3 filed objections before the Consolidation Officer which were rejected. Thereafter Opposite party No. 3 went in appeal before the Settlement Officer, in which the Petitioners were not made parties. Behind their back the Chaks were altered. Against the order of the Settlement Officer the Petitioners went up in revision before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, who dismissed their revision. Aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Officer and the Deputy Director of Consolidation the Petitioners have come in writ petition to this Court. It has been argued on behalf of the Petitioners that the Settlement Officer erred in law in deciding the case against the Petitioners without making them parties or without issuing notice to them. The Deputy Director, Consolidation also did not consider this point. It is a principle of natural justice that a case should not be decided against a person without giving him opportunity of defending. Reliance was placed by learned Counsel for the Petitioners on a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court. In Re. Udai Chand and Ors. v. Chandan Singh and Ors. Civil Misc. Writ No. 2442 of 1956 dated 23 -4 -58, by Hon'ble Oak, J., wherein it was decided that there was a statutory provision for issuing notice to the 'parties concerned.' and apart from that, there was general principle of natural justice that a judicial body should not decide a matter against a party without giving him at least an opportunity of hearing.
(3.) IT was further argued that, as in the present case, the Settlement Officer modified the order of the Consolidation Officer and made changes in the plots allotted to the Petitioners without giving them notice; the order is bad.;