- (1.) Heard Shri Dinesh Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, Advocate, representing respondent No. 5, 6 and 7.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 2.7.2019 and 5.7.2019 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh, i.e., respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as, 'D.D.C.') accepting the Reference submitted to him by the Consolidation Officer under Section 48(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'). Through his aforesaid orders, the D.D.C. has amended the chaks allotted to the parties and also affected the chak of the petitioners on Plot N. 711. It is apparent from the records that the impugned orders were passed by the D.D.C. without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the orders dated 2.7.2019 and 5.7.2019 passed by the D.D.C. are contrary to Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953 and therefore liable to be set aside. Opposing the writ petition, the counsel for respondent Nos. 5 to 7 has argued that through the impugned orders, the respondents have been restored a chak on Plot No. 711, which was their original holding and was adjacent to road, and therefore, the petitioners are nor entitled to a chak on the aforesaid plots. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) It is apparent that the orders dated 2.7.2019 and 5.7.2019 were passed by the D.D.C. without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Under Section 48 of the Act, 1953, a tenure holder, who is affected by the Reference submitted by the subordinate consolidation authority is entitled to a hearing by the subordinate consolidation authority before preparing the Reference and subsequently also a hearing by the D.D.C. before passing any order under Section 48(1) of the Act, 1953 on the Reference submitted by the subordinate consolidation authority. Apparently, the petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing by the D.D.C. before passing the orders dated 2.7.2019 and 5.7.2019.;