K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 26 -7 -1974 and 30 -10 -1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and also against the order dated 12 -4 -1968 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal arising out of proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows.
(2.) PLOT No. 167 is close to Abadi and it forms part of the original holding of Petitioner Jeet Narain (minor S/o Banshraj). Petitioner was allotted chak on this plot and an area of 6 Dhoors was allotted of this plot in the chak of opposite parties No. 4 and 5. An objection was filed by opposite parties No. 4 and 5 asserting that they be allotted chak on plot Nos. 395 and 396 instead of on plot Nos. 196 and 197. Objection filed by the opposite parties was decided along with certain other objections by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28 -2 -1968 and certain alterations were made in the chaks of some tenure holders including that of opposite parties No. 4 and 5. Aggrieved by that order, opposite parties No. 4 and 5 preferred appeals. This appeal was heard and was allowed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 12 -4 -1968 and by this order, Petitioner's chak was altered by taking out 1 Biswa 5 Dhoors land of plot No. 167 -M and allotting it in the chak of opposite parties No. 4 and 5. The Petitioner's chak was shifted on plot No 166 -N. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed revision which was heard and dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 30 -10 -1972. An application for restoration was also filed by the Petitioner which was dismissed on 27 -7 -1974. The Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders passed by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders passed by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 very carefully.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner, who is minor, was not served with any notice. His father was alive and no notice was served on his father. Referring to the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, learned Counsel contended that one Raja Ram is said to have been heard by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, for the Petitioner. In para. 10 of the writ petition it is mentioned that the names of Petitioner's uncles are Ram Raj and Shyamraj. He, thus, urged that Raja Ram, being not a guardian, could not be heard by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and as such the appeal could not be disposed of by him without notice to his father and without affording an opportunity of hearing to his guardian father. In para. 11 of the counter -affidavit it has been averred that Ram Raj, Bans Raj and Shyam Raj are real brothers and they form joint Hindu family. It is, however, accepted that Raja Ram is not the uncle of the Petitioner. It has further been averred that due to clerical mistake Raja Ram has been written in place of Ram Raj. Since Petitioner was a minor and his father Bans Raj was alive and as such he could not be represented in these proceedings by his uncle. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the Petitioner was represented in the appeal by his uncle and that his uncle was appointed as his guardian. So even if it be taken that due to some clerical error, name of Ram Raj was mentioned as Raja Ram, I find that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not proceed to decide the appeal without properly serving notice of the appeal on the guardian of the Petitioner. Petitioner's father was alive and as such notice should have been sent to the Petitioner's father and he should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing in the appeal. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, cannot be sustained being violative of principles of natural justice.;