Rajesh Kumar, J.
1. By means of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Saharanpur, respondent No. 1 dated 11.6.1999 by which he has decided Revision No. 1779, order dated 24.8.1999 by which he has rejected the restoration application of the petitioners and the order dated 4.10.1999 by which he has rejected the review applications.
2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners' father Geeta Ram was holder of chak No. 162 and after his death, the aforesaid chak devolved between his sons, namely, Mahesh Chand and Suresh Chand, the present petitioners. Sri Abdul Haq was holder of chak No. 46 and after his death, his chak devolved between his three sons, namely, Tizwan, Ishtiyaq and Zahid Hasan, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
3. It appears that in the consolidation proceeding. Abdul Haq filed the objection. The petitioners were not made parties in the consolidation proceeding inasmuch as on the objection being filed by Abdul Haq, the petitioners had not been issued any notice. The objection of Abdul Haq was rejected by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 3.3.1994. Against the order of the Consolidation Officer, Abdul Haq filed appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Saharanpur. the Settlement Consolidation Officer vide order dated 27.5.1995 rejected the appeal. It may be mentioned here that in the appeal the petitioners were not made parties. Against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 27.5.1995 Abdul Haq filed Revision No. 185 of 1995. The said revision was dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 26.2.1999 on the ground that in the memo of revision there was no signature of Abdul Haq. It has been further observed that Abdul Haq had two brothers. Brother Abdul Salam had compromised with Mahesh Chand and he had no objection. The sons of Abdul Haq filed an application for their impleadment. The Consolidation Officer was of the view that sons should file revision. Accordingly, revision was dismissed.
4. It appears that Revision No. 1779 of 1999 was filed by the three sons of Abdul Haq. The copy of the memo of revision is Annexure-10 to the writ petition. It reveals that Abdul Salam, Sadiq, Saddiq, Namoo, Asraf, Shakir, Abdul Salam, Mahesh, Rakesh and Riyasat were made parties. Suresh Chand was not made party. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 11.6.1999 allowed the revision in part. He has amended chak Nos. 46, 162, 45, and 268. Chak No. 162 belongs to the petitioners, Mahesh Chand and Suresh Chand. When the petitioners came to know about the said order, they filed two separate applications for the recalling of the order dated 11.6.1999 along with two affidavits. In the applications, they stated that against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Revision No. 185 of 1995 had already been dismissed and, therefore, the second revision was not maintainable. It was further submitted that notices of hearing had not been served and the order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing. Suresh Chand in the application had also stated that he was not made party in the revision and no notice whatsoever had been issued and served upon him while his chak No. 162 has been disturbed without giving opportunity. The Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 24.8.1999 rejected the restoration applications on the ground that notices were issued to Mahesh Chand and Suresh Chand and it was served on Suresh Chand. Therefore, it is wrong to say that without notice the order was passed. The Deputy Directory of Consolidation was of the view that it was not an ex parte order and, accordingly, he rejected both the applications. The petitioners filed review application which has also been rejected vide order dated 4.10.1999.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly Suresh Chand was not made party in the revision and no notice whatsoever has been issued which is apparent from the memo of revision, Annexure-10 to the writ petition, and he was neither issued any notice nor any notice was served. He further submitted that though Mahesh Chand was made party but the notice had not been served and it is wrong to say that notice was served. He further submitted that without hearing the petitioners, the order dated 11.6.1999 was passed ex parte disturbing the chak No. 162 of the petitioners. He submitted that the petitioners were neither the parties before the Consolidation Officer nor they were made parties in the appeal before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and, therefore, the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation amending the chak of the petitioners was wholly unjustified. He further submitted that once the revision against the order of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation was rejected, second revision was not maintainable.
6. Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 submitted that the earlier revision was not dismissed on merit but it was dismissed as not maintainable inasmuch as Abdul Haq could not sign the revision and, therefore, the second revision filed by sons of Abdul Haq was maintainable and has been rightly decided on merit. He submitted that original holding of Geeta Ram was only 4 bighas and 10 dhur but in the chak allotment proceeding he was wrongly allotted 7 bighas, 3 biswas and 8 dhur land which are much more than 25% of the original area. While Abdul Haq had original area of 13 bighas, 19 biswas and 15 dhur against which he was allotted only 11 bighas and 6 biswas land in his chak and, therefore, the revisional authority has rightly passed the order-on merit. He further submitted that it is wrong to say that the notices were not issued to the petitioners. The revisional authority while rejecting the restoration application has categorically recorded the finding that notices were issued to Mahesh Chand and Suresh Chand and it was served on Mahesh Chand also. Therefore, the restoration application and review application have been rightly rejected. He submitted that having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, the Deputy Director of Consolidation has exercised its revisional powers, condoned the delay and on the basis of the record decided the revision on merit.
7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have gone through the impugned orders, material on record and rival submissions.
8. It is settled principle of law that no decision can be taken against a person without giving opportunity of hearing. This Court in the case of Satrujeet and Ors. v. Deputy Director and Ors. 1979 AWC 282, in the case of Sheo Prarsad and Ors. v. Chhotely Lal and Ors. 1996 RD 375, in the case of Lautavan and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. 1996 RD 89 and in the case of Sarvadaman Rai v. Dalganjan Rai and Ors. 1977 AWC 412 has consistently held that without giving opportunity of hearing the chak of a person concerned cannot be disturbed.
9. In the present case, perusal of the memo of revision reveals that only Mahesh Chand was made party and Suresh Chand was not made party. In the affidavit filed along with restoration application and in the restoration application Suresh Chand has categorically stated that he was not made party. When Suresh Chand was not made party, there was no question to issue any notice tp him. The revisional authority while rejecting the restoration application has also observed that the notice was only served on Mahesh Chand and not on Suresh Chand. In the circumstances, without going into the question whether the notice was validly served on Mahesh Chand or not but the fact remains that Suresh Chand was not made party in the revision and no notice was issued and served on Suresh Chand while chak No. 162 belongs to Suresh Chand also. This fact is sufficient to conclude that the order dated 11.6.1999 was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to Suresh Chand at least while his chafe No. 162 has been disturbed. Therefore, the said order is not maintainable. The revisional authority ought to have allowed the restoration application which he has illegally rejected.
10. Learned Counsel for the respondents tried to justify the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation on merit which cannot be looked into at this stage. It will be open to the parties concerned to make their submissions before the revisional authority which may be considered.
11. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 4.10.1999, 24.8.1999 and 11.6.1999, passed by the respondent No. 1 are quashed. The matter is remanded back to the revisional authority to decide Revision No. 1779 of 1999 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and all parties concerned. It will be open to all parties concerned to take any plea in their favour and the revisional authority is expected to consider and decide the same by a speaking and reasoned order. The petitioners are directed to file certified copy of the order before the revisional authority within two weeks and the revisional authority is directed to decide the revision preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order in the light of the observations made above.