Dhatri Saran Mathur, J. - (1.) The extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not exercised in each and every case. Where some irregularity or illegality has been committed what is necessary is that some injustice must be done to the party. It is true that it was necessary for the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to give a hearing to the Appellant before making a reference to the Director of Consolidation Under Sec. 48(3), but there is no reason why the Director will not take suitable steps. Before marketing the reference, the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) would have given a personal hearing to the Appellant and he may also have recorded the evidence of the parties. Consequently, where a reference is made to the Director without the subordinate authority holding an inquiry, it shall be necessary for the Director to himself hold the inquiry and to record the evidence of the parties. In the alternative, he can send back the reference or direct the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) to record the evidence of the parties. Thereby the Appellant shall not be prejudiced. It was in these circumstances that the learned single Judge had declined to quash the order of reference.
(2.) The inquiry conducted by the Sub -Divisional Officer is a distinct one and it is independent of the reference made by the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). However, to avoid unnecessary botheration and litigation, the Sub -Divisional Officer can consider postponing the inquiry till the reference is decided by the Director of Consolidation. The special appeal is hereby dismissed summarily.;