ORDER :- The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition an order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow (Camp at Ghazipur), dated 25th January 1975 on the ground that although he was a necessary party, he had neither been impleaded nor heard before the alteration in the chak was made. There is no dispute that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the revision filed by Joginder Rai and others. The point in issue is whether the interest of the petitioner was represented by his cousins and uncles. The contention on behalf of the petitioners was that they did not represent his interest, and since the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard before the alteration in the chaks were made there was a breach of the rules of natural justice and the petitioners interest gravely prejudiced. The contention on behalf of the contesting respondents was that the petitioner was a joint chak holder along with respondents 1 to 5, who were parties in the revision and as such, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner.

2. A number of reported decisions were cited by either parties in this case in support of their respective contentions. Mr. Justice Dwivedi in the case of Lautayan v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1966 B. D. 89) was considering the case of three brothers, one of whom had no notice of the proceedings. He took the view that it was not improbable that the two brothers might have acted on their own. There being nothing on the record to show that one of these two brothers was a manager of the joint family, or that the three brothers constituted a joint family, he held that since the third brother was not given the notice of the proceedings the order of the Deputy Director of consolidation was in clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. In the case of Kunj Behari v. Deputy Director of consolidation (1967 R. D. 38), Mr. Justice Laxmi Prasad held the proceedings under S. 48 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act to be judicial or quasi judicial proceedings, and where an order was passed to the prejudice of a party without affording an opportunity to such a party, it violated the principles of natural justice which justified the issue of certiorari. In the above case, three of the necessary parties were not served in the revision and had not put in appearance although an order was passed against them. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned was quashed. In the case of Kr. Sarjeet Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1967 R. D. 309), Mr. Justice R. S. Pathak (as he then was) held that the impleadment of necessary parties was imperative and where there was a failure to implead the necessary parties, the Deputy Director of Consolidation was justified in dismissing the revision on that ground. It was a case which involved a question as to the rights of co-tenure-holders. In the above case, only one of the petitioner was impleaded as opposite party in the revision. This decision was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court reported in (1967 R. D. 136, Kr. Sarjeet Singh v. Dy. Director of Consolidation). In the case of Sita Ram Singh v. State of UP (1970 All WR (HC) 717), Mr. Justice S. N. Singh held that the notice served on one of the co-tenure-holders does not amount to a service on all of them. He held that the notice should be served on all the co-tenure-holders concerned. He relied on the decision of Mr. Justice Dwivedi and two other decision of this Court, one in Sheo Prasad v. Chhotey Lal (1966 R. D. 375) and the other in Chandrika v. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1967 R. D. 125). It was contended before Mr. Justice S. N. Singh that the petitioner was not made a party in the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Consolidation and it was held in the above case that although the petitioner was not made a way, he had been heard before the impugned order was passed and consequently

Click Here to Read the rest of this document