- (1.) B. Dikshit, J. This writ petition is listed for admission. As counter-affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged, the writ petition is being finally disposed of in accordance with Rules of the Court.
(2.) THE Deputy, Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur decided two revisions by order, dated 27-3-1993. THE two revisions were 475/199, Bikamt v, Abdul Rauf and others, which was filed by petitioner and 476/197,' Abdul Hasan v. State & others filed by respondents No. 2. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation by that order allowed both the revisions and re-adjusted the chaks of the parties. An application was moved on 29-3-1993 by opposite party No. 2 Abdul Hasan for setting aside the order passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. Petitioner uied objection against that application. THE Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated, 25-2-94 allowed the application of Abdul Hasan, recalled his order dated, 27-3-1993 and restored both the revisions to their original number for re-hearing them. THE learned counsel for petitioner has argued that Deputy Director of Consolidation did not consider objection of petitioner wherein petitioner set up the case that the order has been passed after hearing Abdul Hasan. He argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has recalled the order without applying his mind to the merits of the matter and without recording necessary finding on. the basis of material on record which shows that the order was passed without affording opportunity of hearing to Abdul Hasan. Learned counsel, for the opposite party argued that the Deputy Director of Consolidation being satisfied that Abdul Hasan was not heard was set aside the order and this does not require any interference in exercise of power in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order of Deputy Director of Consolidation has been placed before me by counsel for the petitioner. It is apparent from perusal of the judgment that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has arrived at conclusion that Bikanu was not heard in the revision of Abdul Hasan the conclusion is without considering the cases set up by the parties and without assigning reasons for recording such a finding. The Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was exercising a judicial power while passing order and he was required to consider the whole matter objectively on the basis of material which was before him. While exercising such a power he was required to record reasons for arriving at conclusion that Abdul Hasan did not get opportunity to place his case. From the perusal of impugned order I find that the Deputy Director of Consolidation has set aside the order without following said requirements necessary under the law. For the said reasons the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.
(3.) FOR aforesaid reasons the order, dated 25-2-1994 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure-7 to writ petition) is quashed and he is directed to dispose of application, dated 29-3- 1993 of Abdul Hasan opposite party in the light of aforesaid observations. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;