B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THE preset petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10 -4 -86 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur rejecting the revision of the Petitioners in a case arising out of an application made by some persons complaining that some portion of land of the Gaon Sabha of village Mahuari has been occupied by nobody else than the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha himself whose legal duty as an elected Pradhan was to protect the land of the Gaon Sabha. On that application an enquiry was held in respect of which the Petitioner has information. In that enquiry it was found that the land in respect of which application was moved was of the Gaon Sabha. This enquiry was treated to be an administrative enquiry and the result of the enquiry or the report thereof was not given to the Petitioners. A direction was issued that aggrieved persons namely the persons recorded, may be given an opportunity of being heard before the entries in revenue papers were expunged. The direction was that as other stages including that of Section 9 of the UP CH Act (for short the Act) were over, the Reference proceedings Under Section 48(3) of the Act can be initiated.
(2.) IN fact, the Settlement Officer Consolidation in His voider, dated 11 -10 -83 directed that the entries in the names of the Petitioners of any tenure holder over the land of the Gaon Sabha can be corrected by Reference proceedings Under Section 48(3). The Petitioners' revision was dismissed, hence the instant petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged that the Petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing when administrative proceedings were going on the complaint of residents to the village against the alleged encroachment or grabbing of the land of Gaon Sabha by the Petitioners, and that the report of the Administrative enquiry was not given to the Petitioners. Consequently there was violation of principles of natural justice. In support of the submission State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1977 SC 1269 ' was relied upon.
(3.) HAVING heard the counsel for the Petitioners I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merits. As regards the submission that the Petitioners must have been afforded opportunity of hearing and must have been served with notices when the enquiry was being conducted by the relevant autftofities to ascertain the truth of the allegations in the 'application oi the villagers that the persons including the Petitioners have occupied unlawfully the land of the Gaon Sabha. Suffice it to say that the enquiry was of administrative in nature and by the result of the enquiry the rights of the Petitioners were not going to be affected. In fact, this was just a fact finding 'enquiry to ascertain as to whether there was any truth in the application of villagers that the Petitioners have grabbed the land of the Gaon' Sabha. By the result of the enquiry the rights of the Petitioners were not to be affected nor were entries in revenue papers in their names to be expunged. This was just an administrative enquiry with no relief to the persons who moved the application nor by the result of this -enquiry any right or interest of the Petitioners was to be put in jeopardy nor the same was to be adversely effected. In these circumstances no opportunity off hearing was nicety to the Petitioners while administrative enquiry was in progress.;