Janaradan Sahai, J. - (1.) By the impugned order dated 23.6.1992 the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur/District Deputy Director of Consolidation has in exercise of power under section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act set aside the provisional consolidation scheme and has directed that fresh scheme may be prepared from the stage of fixation of valuation of the plots. The petitioners are aggrieved by this order. The petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman of the consolidation committee and the other petitioners are its members. It appears that certain complaints about the irregularities in the preparation of the provisional consolidation scheme were been made to the Collector, Fatehpur and he called for a report from the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer submitted a report dated 5.6.1992 about various irregularities committed in fixation of valuation of the plots etc. The report of the Consolidation Officer was forwarded with the recommendation of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation to the Deputy Director of Consolidation and the Deputy Director of Consolidation then passed the impugned three words order ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
(2.) The submission of Sri R.K. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners or to any tenure holder at any stage and that even the Deputy Director of Consolidation did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before passing the impugned order. The second submission is that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation is illegal having been passed without application of mind and the said order, therefore, cannot be sustained. In support of this case reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in Surttiya Devi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 2004 (96) RD 621, in which it was held that an order passed in a reference under section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act without recording any reason and without opportunity of hearing given to the aggrieved persons cannot be sustained. Reliance is also placed upon the decision in Samaj Sudharak Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti, Kareru, Faizabad and others v. District Deputy Director of Consolidation/District Magistrate, Faizabad and others, 2004 (97) RD 618, in which it was held that an order passed without opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained. Similar view has been taken in Gauri Shankar and others v. State of U.P. Through Chief Secretary, Lucknow and others, 2004 (97) RD 620. In the counter affidavit filed by the State the averments made in paragraph 10 of the writ petition in which it was alleged that no opportunity was given to the petitioner have been denied only in general terms. Sri Rajeev Mishra representing the private respondent could also not refer to any specific denial of the averment about the want of opportunity. It is also clear that the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been passed without application of mind as it does not contain any reason. It is to be noted that the costs of consolidation proceedings is to be borne by the tenure holders and setting aside of the provisional consolidation scheme should not be directed without good reasons. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is a recital in the report of the Consolidation Officer that the cases were pending at the stage of revision and that only 13 time barred appeals and 76 revisions were pending and grievances raised by the parties he submits could be examined in the cases themselves. It is not necessary to express any opinion upon the merits of this contention. The order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation has been passed without application of mind and in breach of the principles of natural justice and these two grounds are sufficient for setting aside the order.
(3.) For these reasons the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehapur dated 23.6.1992 is set aside. The Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur shall give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the present consolidation committee. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Fatehpur shall dispose of the case, if possible within three months from the date a certified copy of this orders is filed before him.;