R.M. Sahai, J.

In this petition directed against order of Dy. Director Consolidation, in proceedings arising out of allotment of chaks, the question is whether order u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was passed after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to parties concerned. The revision was heard earlier, in 1976, but before the order could be pronounced the Deputy Director was transferred. It was again fixed for hearing on 27th July, 1978. The notice of this was served on Petitioner's son who is stated to be minor. There were lengthy arguments by Learned Counsel for parties whether this service was valid and could be taken as sufficient. It is, however, not necessary to decide it as from affidavit and counter-affidavit it is established that Petitioner did appear on this date. The question of service was therefore immaterial as jurisdiction to exercise power u/s 48 is not dependent on service of notice but on affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. The matters did not rest here. The Deputy Director after hearing fixed 31-8-78 for local inspection. The order sheet of this date reads that local inspection has been made and the case is fixed for o