Surya Kant, J. - (1.) THE Consolidation Officer, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 03.01.1985 (Annexure P2) carried out certain modifications/charges in the landholdings of the petitioners and the private respondents with a view to make good the deficiencies. That order was passed without hearing the petitioners. They challenged the said order directly before the Director, Consolidation of Holdings in a petition under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948. The Director, Consolidation vide order dated 26.11.1986 (Annexure P3) relegated the petitioners to the remedy of appeal before Settlement Officer under Section 21(3) of the Act. The petitioners consequently filed the appeal which was, however, dismissed by the Settlement Officer vide order dated 29.04.1987 (Annexure P4) being barred by limitation. They again went in a revision petition before the Director, Consolidation under Section 42 of the Act who dismissed their petition along with bunch of other cases by way of a common order. The facts would speak for themselves. The petitioners' share in the joint land -holdings was affected to their detriment vide order dated 03.01.1985 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Hoshiapur. The question is not whether that order was justified or not? Albeit the question is whether it could be passed without hearing them? The principles of natural justice are inbuilt in quasi judicial proceedings. No order visiting the petitioners with civil consequences could be passed without following the principle of audi alteram partem.
(2.) THE other ancillary question is whether the order alleged to have affected the petitioners was incurable or were they totally remediless? Once the Statute provides the forum to challenge such order by way of an appeal and the Revisional Authority had relegated the petitioners to that Forum, there was hardly any justification to plant technicalities and throw them out of the Appellate Forum on the plea of limitation. The appropriate recourse would have been to decide the petitioners' appeal on merits after hearing all the parties. The Revisional Authority also in the second round acted mechanically and dismissed the petitioners' revision petition for no discernible much less a valid reason.
(3.) WE are thus of the view that the orders dated 29.04.1987 (Annexure P4) and the order dated 25.12.1987/11.01.1988 (Annexure P5) cannot sustain qua the petitioners. The same are accordingly set aside. The Settlement Officer, Jalandhar is directed to decide the petitioners' appeal file under Section 21(3) of the Act on merits and after hearing all the parties. The said Authority shall issue fresh notices to the parties so that no one goes unheard. Ordered accordingly. Dasti.;