- (1.) B. K. Roy, J. The petitioner prays to quash the order dated 28. 1. 1980 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur, while exercising his suo moto jurisdiction, remanding the objection of the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha, Rampur (Respondent No. 2) preferred against the basic year consolidation entry in its favour even though against the order rejecting the objection Gaon Sabha no appeal or revision was preferred.
(2.) THE portrayal of the relevant facts are in a narrow compass. It appears from the various orders that the lands bearing Khata No. 283, village Rampur district Jaunpur stand recorded in the basic year khatauni in favour of the petitioner. Objections were filed by several persons including Gaon Sabha, Rampur. THE petitioner contested all the objections. Issues Nos. 11 and 12 which were framed by the Consolidation Officer were respectively to the fol lowing effect: - " (11) Whether Kutir Inter College is the real tenant of the disputed lands?. (12) Whether the disputed lands are property of the Gaon Sabha". THE Consolidation Officer after discussion of several facts and circumstances held that the lands are correctly entered in the name of the petitioner and the Gaon Sabha and other objectors had not succeeded in proving their rights. THE Consolidation Officer also stated that according to the Gaon Sabha its rights had finished since 1362 fasli. THE Gaon Sabha did not go up in appeal. THE petitioner, however, went up in Appeal No. 554 against that part of the order of the Consolidation Officer in regard to other objection which was not in its favour. Appeal Nos. 1 and 11 were also preferred by some of the objectors. THE appeal of the petitioner was allowed in part but other appeals were dismissed with certain liberties. THE appellate authority observed inter alia that there is nothing on the record to show how the disputed land vested in the Gaon Sabha Other objectors went up in Revision Nos. 1346 & 1347. While dismissing revisions of other objectors the Revisional Authority observed that the orders passed by the authorities below are correct but since the Pradhan who has filed the objection against the basic year entries was not disposed of according to law inasmuch as even though an application dated 15-10-1969 was filed by him (the Pradhan) for calling records to prove that the petitioner is not in existence, in view of the provisions of Section 11-C of the Act it is necessary to exercise suo moto jurisdiction and remand the case. THE writ petition avers that resort to Section 11-C can be taken after hearing the parties which was not done and that no evidence was adduced by the Gaon Sabha to prove its case and thus the remand was wholly misconceived. Mr. Faujdar Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended as follows: (i) The revisional authority has failed to ap preciate that the petition dated 15-10-1969 was not pressed before the Con solidation Officer and hence its cognizance was illegally taken in absence of even an appeal by the Gaon Sabha. Besides the Revisional authority during hearing of the Revisions never expressed that it intends to exercise suo moto powers under Section 11-C of the Act and gave no opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in that regard hence grossly violated the principles of natural justice, (ii) It has exceeded in its jurisdiction invoking the provisions of Sec tion 11-C of the Act and remanding the case to the Consolidation Officer without first recording a finding that the lands had vested in the Gaon Sabha. (iii) As in fact no evidence was led by the Gaon Sabha that the land had vested in it these was no question of remanding the case for de nove con sideration. Learned counsel also referred to Paragraph 16, 17 and 22 (3), (4) and (10) of the writ petition wherein relevant facts have been stated in this regard and highlighted that these facts have not been specifically denied by the respondents. No one turns up on behalf of the Respondents to counter the submis sions.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit of the Gaon Sabha it has been stated that "in reply to the contents of paras 1 to 20 the facts stated in the impugned orders of opposite party No. 1 are hereby asserted to be correct facts on behalf of the Gaon Sabha and the facts stated to the contrary in the writ petition are not admitted" and that "the contents of para 22 of the writ petition are not correct and matters of arguments". Section 11-C of the Act runs as follows: - "11-C. In the course of hearing of an objection under Section 9-A or an appeal under Section 11, or in proceedings under Section 48, the Consolidation Officer, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) or the Director of Consolidation, as the case may be, may direct that any land which vests in the State Government or the Gaon Sabha or any other local body or authority may be recorded in its name, even though no objection, appeal or revision has been filed by such Government, Gaon Sabha, body or authority)". Even though Section 11-C does not talk of giving any opportunity of hearing in view of catena of decisions of the Apex Court interpreting principles of natural justice it has to be held that before taking resort to this provision giving of opportunity of hearing to the effected party is must and its non- affording will render the order violative of principles of natural justice. The impugned order does not show that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before taking recourse to the aforesaid provision.;