B. L. Yadav, J - (1.) WHETHER without assigning any reasons and without hearing the petitioner, the Deputy Director Consolidation in exercising his jurisdiction pertaining to Reference under Section 48 (3) of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 (for short the Act) can allow the Reference, Is the short question for determination in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) IT appears that the proceeding for allotment of chaks under section 20 of the Act, were finalised. There were some mistakes In the area etc, In some plots, consequently, the consolidation officer made a Reference to the Settlement officer, who in his turn made Reference to the Deputy Director of Consolidation with modification, which was to be accepted under section 48 (3) of the Act But the Reference as proposed by Asstt Settlement Officer Consolidation has been rejected and as proposed by the Consolidation Officer, it has been accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner was not heard and principles of natural justice have been violated and the impugned order dated 18th of May 1992 also does not indicate that the petitioner was heard even though be was adversely affected by the Reference being accepted. The restoration application filed by the petitioner, which has not been disposed of but circumstances Indicate that It cannot succeed. The provisions of section 48 (3) are mandatory and the word 'may' used is just to Indicate respect and responsibility but In fact it is mandatory and means 'must and shall'. No reasons have been assigned in the impugned order. Without reasons the order ceases to exist. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed and learned counsel for the parties suggested that the petition Itself may be decided on merits. Consequently, I proceed to decide the writ petition on merits.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent urged that the petitioner was heard and the reasons given in the impugned order was sufficient and the word 'may' used in section 48 (3) of the Act ii directory and the restoration application is pending, this court may await the result of the same. THE hearing as contemplated under section 4? Oi of ths Act means hearing only at the preliminary stage either by Asstt. Consolidation Officer or Consolidation Officer, but it doss not refer to the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the points for determination are whether expression 'may' used under section 43 (3) Is mandatory or directory, whether reasons have been assigned in the impugned order, if not, can trie order be sustained without any reasons, and whether principles of natural justice have been violated and whether petitioner may await the result of restoration application.;