B.L. Yadav, J. - (1.) THIS petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation in reference proceedings Under Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act).
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and they are these. In the basic year the Petitioners were recorded tenure holders in respect of plot Nos. 243, 254, 255, 260, 159 and 201. In case No. 3799 an objection was filed by the Petitioners that these plots may be partitioned amongst the Petitioners and each Petitioner has 1/3 share. On 27 -1 -72 the Assistant Consolidation Officer in a conciliation proceeding directed each Petitioner to have 1/3 share. This order was also incorporated in CH Form 23. Some proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, (tor short Ceiling Act), were also pending. The Sub -Divisional Officer, Konch, as the Prescribed Authority, had declared these plots as surplus. The total area of these plots was 17.04 acre. The Petitioners have filed a suit Under Section 229B of the UP ZA and LR Act indicating that these plots belong to Deoki Nandan, their father and the second appeal in that suit was still pending. In case No. 2956 the Sub -Divisional Officer, Konch, sent information that these plots being declared surplus under the Ceiling Act, must be kept apart in the name of State of U.P. and need not be included in the holding of any person. On that basis the Reference Under Section 48(3) of the Act was prepared and sent to the Asstt. Director of Consolidation for approval. He, however, accepted the same with modification by the impugned order. Sri G.N. Verma appearing for the Petitioners urged that admittedly the Petitioners were minors. In view of Rule 14 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, (for short Rules), no guardian was appointed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in consultation with the consolidation committee, nor such appointment was published for the perusal by public, nor objections were invited. The notices were also not served on the guardian rather they were served on the minors as is clear from Annexure -8 to the petition. Under Rule 58(2) of the Rules, the notice must have been served on the guardian personally. In case the guardian was not available at his residence, the notice must have been served by affixation, but the same was not done. The Petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing. This fact was evident from a bare perusal of the impugned order. The principles of natural justice have been violated. The impugned orders deserves to be quashed.
(3.) SRI Bhagwati Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has very strenuously urged that the Petitioners were personally served or in any case their guardian was served. Under Section 11(C) of the Act the land has correctly been directed to be recorded in true name of State. The impugned order was correct. The order under the Ceiling Act would operate as res -judicata and unless the same was set aside the Petitioners cannot get any relief.;