R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) IT is not necessary to examine merits of the matter as the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation appears to be in violation of mandatory requirements of Section 48 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act of passing it after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to parties.
(2.) SITARAM Petitioner No. 1 is minor. He filed an objection Under Section 9 -A of C.H. Act claiming 1/2 share in land in dispute. His objection was dismissed. But it was allowed by the Settlement Officer Consolidation. Against appellate order opposite party No. 4 and 5 filed revision under guardianship of his father Beni Madho. It was allowed. Beni Madho was dead before start of consolidation proceedings. And the order was passed against Petitioner without service of notice of hearing. Smt. Kilki mother of Petitioner filed a restoration application as well but it was dismissed. The Deputy Director held that on the date of hearing of restoration application Kilki was not present but an application was filed by one Kedar for adjournment of the case. According to Deputy Director this Kedar Nath was the guardian of Petitioner and as revision was heard and decided after hearing him the Petitioner cannot make any grievance of it. He dismissed the restoration application. This petition is directed against both these orders of Deputy Director. It is not denied in the counter -affidavit that Beni Madho was dead before start of consolidation. Further from the order of revision, copy of which has been filed as annexure -3 to the writ petition, it is amply proved that Petitioner was impleaded under guardianship of his deceased father. How was he shown under guardianship of Kedar Nath in the array of parties in the order passed on restoration application is not clear. It has not been explained in the counter -affidavit. Prima facie it appears notice to the revision was not served on Petitioner. But what is urged by learned Counsel for opposite party is that the order was passed after hearing Kedar Nath. According to him Kedar Nath was looking after Petitioner's interest. Therefore even if no notice was served the order having been passed after hearing Petitioner does not suffer from any error of law.
(3.) THE argument is no doubt correct. But it is not established that Kedar Nath appeared on behalf of Petitioner. He was himself party. In absence of any material to show that Kedar Nath instructed the counsel to appear on behalf of Sitaram or any evidence that Sitaram engaged any counsel or any one appeared on Sitaram's behalf it cannot be assumed that as Kedar Nath moved application for adjournment he appeared on behalf of Petitioner and the mandatory requirement of hearing Petitioner was complied.;