The counsel for the parties and the counsel for the State were heard. Preliminary objections were raised as below: (1) that the joint reference made by the Collector was bad in law; (2) that the Additional Collector had no power to make the reference; (3) that a reference made after 7 years, especially when there was a prevision for appeal should not be entertained, and (4) that the Collector should have given a hearing to the parties before-making this reference. So far as the (objection raised against making a joint reference is concerned, it was conceded that such a reference was bad in law. A joint reference does not indicate prima facie that the learned Addl. Collector had given thought to each case individually which he was duty bound to do. It is a well known maxim that it is more important to show that justice is being done than to do it. A joint reference does not indicate that judicial consideration was given to each and every case. It is, therefore, bad in law and should be avoided. With regard to the contention that the learned Additional Collector had no power to make the reference, attention may be invited to the definition of Collector given in sec. 5(7) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, according to which a Collector "shall mean a Collector or an Additional Collector appointed under the Rajasthan Territorial Divisions Ordinance, 1949, or under any other law for the time being in force." This clearly indicates that this objection was evidently untenable. An additional Collector is as much competent to make a reference under sec. 82 of the Land Revenue Act or 232 of the Tenancy Act as the Collector. With regard to the third objection that a reference was being made 7 years after the event when there Was provision for special appeal, it may be stated that the same question was considered by a Full Bench of the Board of Revenue in State versus Mira (RRD 1966 page 44), in which it was held that a reference under sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was maintainable even if an appeal or revision lies to the Board against the proceedings or impugned order. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act was maintainable even if an appeal or revision lies to the Board against the proceedings or impugned order. It was further observed that according to item 79 of the Third Schedule of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act there was no period of limitation for the exercise of the power conferred upon the Collector by sec. 232. It was open to the Collector therefore to call for and examine the record of any case or proceeding decided by or pending before any revenue court subordinate to it for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of the proceeding at any time. The present reference is under sec. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act but the language used in that Section is more or less similar to that of sec. 232 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The rule cited therefore in State of Rajasthan versus Mira by the Full Bench of the Board of Revenue would hold equally applicable in cases under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act both as regards competence of a reference by the Collector even in cases where appeal and revision are provided, as well as on the question of there being no period of limitation prescribed for making such a reference. The fourth objection that the Collector should have given a hearing to the parties before making a reference stands on a more solid ground. Sec. 85 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act specifically lay down— "No order under sec. 82 or sec. 83 or sec. 84 shall be passed to the prejudice of any person unless such person has had an opportunity of being heard." Sec. 82 empowers the Collector to make a reference to the Board with his opinion that the proceedings taken or order passed by a subordinate Court or Officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed. This opinion ostensibly is likely to prejudice of any person affected by it. For example, in the present case the 3 non-petitioners were obviously affected by the opinion of the Collector. It was, therefore, incumbent on the Collector to have first given a hearing to them before arriving at his opinion that the case should be referred to the Board of Revenue. For example, in the present case the 3 non-petitioners were obviously affected by the opinion of the Collector. It was, therefore, incumbent on the Collector to have first given a hearing to them before arriving at his opinion that the case should be referred to the Board of Revenue. In State versus Mira it was observed "it is also necessary that before a reference is made, a full opportunity should be given to the affected parties to contest the same." As the section reads, this extraordinary power has been given to the Collector for the purpose of satisfying himself with regard to the legality or propriety of the impugned order and the regularity of the proceeding, and he is required to make a reference only if he comes to the conclusion that the order passed or the proceeding taken by subordinate court should be varied, cancelled or reversed. As was held in Sugan Singh versus State of Rajasthan (RLW 1962 Revenue Supplement page 79), a reference made without hearing the parties is not proper. Before a reference is made, the Collector must hear the contesting parties and apply his mind. Though this rule was based on the scope of sec.232 of the Raj. Tenancy Act, yet as observed earlier, due to similarity of language used in both the Sections, it is applicable in the case of references made under sec. 82 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act. It has often been observed that the Collectors make such references without giving a hearing to the parties in their anxiety to get expeditious decision. It only delays decision because of non-compliance with a statutory legal obligation that the parties must be given a hearing to whose prejudice a reference is expected to be made. I, therefore, think that for the reason that the Collector did not make this reference after giving proper hearing to the parties, the preliminary objection raised against the acceptance of this reference has to be conceded. I, therefore, return the reference with the direction that the reference should be made separately in each individual case after giving proper hearing to the interested parties.