Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44620 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 718 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jogendra Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Shrawasti And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajey Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajey Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that in the present case during consolidation proceedings the Consolidator had allowed Chak No. 129 to the petitioner No. 2 and Chak No. 396 to petitioner Nos. 1 & 3. He has submitted that there was a dispute with regard to valuation of the chaks due to which the consolidation authorities have referred the matter to Dy. Director of Consolidation by means of order 24.03.2006. 3. Before the Dy. Director of Consolidation, the petitioner has raised preliminary objection with regard to the fact that no opportunity of hearing or any notice was given to them at the time of making of the reference and consequently the said reference was in clear violation of Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 4. The Dy. Director of Consolidation has noticed the objections made by the petitioners but without considering the said objections has proceeded to decide the matter on merits. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once there was an infirmity in the reference and the same was pointed out to the Dy. Director of Consolidation then it was incumbent upon the Dy. Director of Consolidation to have first consider the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner before embarking the answer the reference made to him. 6. Accordingly, it was submitted that the order has been passed without application of mind which is illegal and arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition but does not oppose the aforesaid facts. 8. Accordingly, considering the solitary ground raised by the petitioners with regard to the defects in reference of the order. It is noticed that as per provision of Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 which is quoted as under:- "Section 48(3) in U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 - Any authority subordinate to the Director of Consolidation may, after allowing the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard, refer the record of any case or proceedings to the Director of Consolidation for action under sub-section (1)." 9. Accordingly, it is clear that before making a reference an opportunity and notice has to be given to the parties concerned. In the present case, the reference order dated 24.03.2006 clearly indicates that the same has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and despite the said objection having been raised by the petitioner before the Dy. Director of Consolidation the same was not considered and accordingly the impugned order has been passed which is clearly illegal and arbitrary and deserves to be set aside. 10. In light of the above, the order dated 23.09.2024 as well as referral order dated 24.03.2006 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Dy. Director of Consolidation for sending the file back to the competent authority for making a fresh reference as per provisions of Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 11. Let the said proceeding be decided expeditiously, say, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 12. In view of aforesaid observations / directions, the writ petition stands allowed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench