B.L.Yadav, J. - (1.) BY the present petition the prayer is that the order dated 25-9-91 (Annexure-6), passed on the application dated 26-3-90, and the order dated 6-3-90 (Annexure-5) rejecting the restoration application, in proceedings under section 48 (3) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. (for short the Act), for preparing reference, and the order dated 21-11-88 (Annexure-3). accepting the reference under section 48 (3) of the Act, with the observation that Horam, son of Shankar, Chak bolder no. 374 has raised objection that by accepting the reference his Chak near the boaring over plot no. 217 would not remain rectangular, are sought to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.
(2.) SRI Swaraj Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in proceedings for reference the petitioner was not served with any notice, and without recording a categorical finding about the service of notice on the petitioner the subsequent two orders rejecting the restoration application, were passed. In the first two orders rejecting the restoration application, the grievance of the petitioner Shankar was that he was not heard, nor he was present on the date of hearing, i.e. 21-11-88. but an observation has been made that in place of Shankar, Chak Holder No 374, his son Horam has raised objection and was present on the date of hearing It was further urged that the petitioner did mot make signature on the order sheet, nor he was heard on the date fixed, any by making an incorrect observation about the presence of Horam, the son of petitioner, reference has been accepted by order dated 21-11-88 (Annexure-3), in proceedings under section 48 (3) of the Act, and petitioner's restoration application has incorrectly been dismissed without recording a finding that the petitioner was not heard. Reliance was placed on Nawal Kishore Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1986 ALJ 117, Kunwarpal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, 1986 ALJ 576 ; Suba v Mohd. Shafi, 1986 RD 180 and Nathani Singh v. Asstt. Director of Consolidation, 1990 RD 258. Sri S. K .Gaur, learned counsel for the respondents urged that notice about the date fixed for hearing of reference under section 48 (3) of the Act was served on the petitioner and instead of attending himself, the petitioner deputed his son Horam to appear on the date fixed Horam did appear and he was doing pairvi and made signature on the order sheet and was heard also The restoration application has, correctly been dismissed. Reliance was placed oh Bipin Kumar Agarwal v. Board of Directors, Vidhur Gramin Bank, 1990 AWC 983; Nawal Kishore Lal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation. 1986 ALJ 117; and Kunwarpal v. Dy. Director of Consolidation. 1986 ALJ 576. Learned counsel for both the parties have suggested that the petition may be decided on merits. Consequently, I proceed to decide the petition on merits
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, the short point that fall for determination is as to whether the petitioner was served with a notice for the date fixed and was actually heard while accepting the reference under section 48 (3) of the Act. The irresistible conclusion of the first point would be as to whether the petitioner's restoration application has correctly been dismissed Before deciding the point it is pertinent to mention that section 48 (3) of the Act Itself contemplates that the referance can be accepted only after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. No doubt the word 'may' has been employed by the Legislature about the hearing of the parties affected by the reference. But normally the word "may' is directory and in view of reference to the context, particularly when the word 'may' is used for exercising jurisdiction or following procedure by a Court, Tribunal, or Authority deciding the rights of the parties, is that situation the word 'may' means 'must,' and 'shall', and is mandatory. In the present case in the impugned order dated 21-11-88 (Annexure-3), an observation has been made that the petitioner's son Horam has raised objection on behalf of petitioner. In paras 6, 7 and 8 of petition it was averred that the petitioner was not heard on 21-11-88. when the reference was decided on merits. Thesis paras have been replied in paras 7, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, and it has been stated that on 21-11-88 both the parties were present before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Petitioner's son Horam was present on 21-11-88 and he has signed the order sheet and the order dated 21-11-88 accepting the reference was not an exparte order and the restoration application was filed by the petitioner beyond the prescribed period of limitation, and there was no application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and the order rejecting the restoration application was correct. A copy of the order sheet has been filed as Annexure C.A. 2 which indicates that Horam has made signature on the order sheet on 21-11-88 when the reference was accepted. A certified copy of the actual notice issued to petitioner for appearance on the date fixed in reference was also shown to me which indicates that actually on the date fixed on 12-9-88 notice was sent to the petitioner and was served personally on him. But as the same has not been filed along with the counter affidavit, I keep it out of consideration. But since it was shown in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I made mention about it.;