The approval of a reference without affording the opposite party an opportunity to be heard constitutes a violation of the principle of natural justice.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the judgment of the deputy Director, Consolidation dated 19. 4. 2001, contained as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The Deputy Director, Consolidation by the judgment impugned in this writ petition has allowed the restoration application filed by the opposite parties and directed that after disposal of the appeal by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, if it is required fresh reference be prepared and be sent after giving notice and opportunity to the parties to the proceedings.

( 2 ) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by the order of the consolidation Officer dated 3. 4. 1996. Plot No. 48 was divided as Plot Nos. 48a and 48b, and it is on the basis of the consent of the parties, reference was prepared by the Consolidation Officer. It has been argued by the learned counsel that before the Consolidation Officer when the reference was prepared and forwarded, both the parties were present and they have signed the order Sheet and, therefore, the Deputy Director, Consolidation has rightly approved the reference vide order dated 29. 12. 1998. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as the order was passed by the Deputy Director. Consolidation approving the reference with the consent of the parties, filing of the restoration application by the opposite parties was not justified and respondent No. 1 has erred in allowing the restoration application.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondents has submitted that there was no consent on behalf of the opposite parties before the Deputy Director. Consolidation and in fact, the opposite parties were not even heard and he never received any opportunity at the stage of the Deputy Director. Consolidation. In respect to the consent as has been recorded in the reference, as has been forwarded at the stage of the Consolidation Officer. it has been argued by the learned counsel that It was on account of the fraud as has been played on him and the said concession was obtained by petitioner at the stage of Consolidation Officer as the opposite party has been under the impression that both the parties will receive good and bad quality of land but by the reference, he has been allotted only bad quality of land which resulted Into prejudice to the opposite party.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the arguments across the Bar and on a perusal of the material as has come on the record. It transpires that on 28. 12. 1998, a reference was forwarded by the Consolidation Officer and the same also find endorsement of the Settlement Officer. Consolidation on 28. 12. 1998 itself, by which the reference was directed to be sent to the Deputy Director. Consolidation for his approval. It is on the very next date, i. e. , on 29. 12. 1998, the reference has been approved by the Deputy Director, Consolidation. This fact is clear by Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid premises in relation to the fact as emerged from the record, it is clear that neither at the stage of Settlement Officer. Consolidation nor at the stage of Deputy Director. Consolidation, the opposite party has ever received any opportunity in any manner by which the opposite party could have been afforded the opportunity at the stage of Deputy Director. Consolidation. During the course of arguments and placement of the fact before the Deputy director, Consolidation, It could have come to the notice of the opposite party that he has received only bad quality of land and impression as was given by the petitioner that both the parties receive good and bad quality of land could have come out to be wrong and at that stage, the opposite party could have raised objection and his grievance In that respect. But as no opportunity was afforded to the opposite party, the order as was passed by the Deputy Director. Consolidation approving the reference was clearly in violation of principle of n