JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment and order dated 26-7-1974 and 30-10-1974 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision u/s 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and also against the order dated 12-4-1968 passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation in appeal arising out of proceedings u/s 20 of the Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows. 2. Plot No. 167 is close to Abadi and it forms part of the original holding of Petitioner Jeet Narain (minor S/o Banshraj). Petitioner was allotted chak on this plot and an area of 6 Dhoors was allotted of this plot in the chak of opposite parties No. 4 and 5. An objection was filed by opposite parties No. 4 and 5 asserting that they be allotted chak on plot Nos. 395 and 396 instead of on plot Nos. 196 and 197. Objection filed by the opposite parties was decided along with certain other objections by the Consolidation Officer vide order dated 28-2-1968 and certain alterations were made in the chaks of some tenure holders including that of opposite parties No. 4 and 5. Aggrieved by that order, opposite parties No. 4 and 5 preferred appeals. This appeal was heard and was allowed by Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 12-4-1968 and by this order, Petitioner's chak was altered by taking out 1 Biswa 5 Dhoors land of plot No. 167-M and allotting it in the chak of opposite parties No. 4 and 5. The Petitioner's chak was shifted on plot No 166-N. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed revision which was heard and dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation by order dated 30-10-1972. An application for restoration was also filed by the Petitioner which was dismissed on 27-7-1974. The Petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders passed by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders passed by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 very carefully. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner, who is minor, was not served with any notice. His father was alive and no notice was served on his father. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the impugned orders passed by opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 very carefully. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner, who is minor, was not served with any notice. His father was alive and no notice was served on his father. Referring to the order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, learned Counsel contended that one Raja Ram is said to have been heard by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, for the Petitioner. In para. 10 of the writ petition it is mentioned that the names of Petitioner's uncles are Ram Raj and Shyamraj. He, thus, urged that Raja Ram, being not a guardian, could not be heard by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and as such the appeal could not be disposed of by him without notice to his father and without affording an opportunity of hearing to his guardian father. In para. 11 of the counter-affidavit it has been averred that Ram Raj, Bans Raj and Shyam Raj are real brothers and they form joint Hindu family. It is, however, accepted that Raja Ram is not the uncle of the Petitioner. It has further been averred that due to clerical mistake Raja Ram has been written in place of Ram Raj. Since Petitioner was a minor and his father Bans Raj was alive and as such he could not be represented in these proceedings by his uncle. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the Petitioner was represented in the appeal by his uncle and that his uncle was appointed as his guardian. So even if it be taken that due to some clerical error, name of Ram Raj was mentioned as Raja Ram, I find that the Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not proceed to decide the appeal without properly serving notice of the appeal on the guardian of the Petitioner. Petitioner's father was alive and as such notice should have been sent to the Petitioner's father and he should have been afforded an opportunity of hearing in the appeal. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, cannot be sustained being violative of principles of natural justice. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that no notice was served on the father of the Petitioner nor on the Petitioner for hearing in the revision. In para. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, cannot be sustained being violative of principles of natural justice. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that no notice was served on the father of the Petitioner nor on the Petitioner for hearing in the revision. In para. 17 of the writ petition process server's report is reproduced which reads as follows: Ram Raj Shukul Vaste Jeet Narain Ga Lakshmi Kant Ga Kamla Shankar Shriman Ji Ek Kita Notice Sri. Jeet Narain Ke Sadar Darvaje Per Chaspa Kiya. Unka Pata Nahi Chala. Hast. Ram Mohan Lal 28-10-1972." 6. Referring to this report, learned Counsel contended that the service report appears to be manipulated one. The process server has very clearly mentioned that he has affixed notice on the main-door of the residential house of Jeet Narain as he was not available whereas the earlier part of the report, purporting to be service of the notice on Ram Raj Shukul Vaste Jeet Narain, runs contrary to the main report submitted by the process server Ram Mohan Lai. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties, referring to paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit contended that the aforesaid report of the process server was subsequently added only to create suspicion in respect of notice on the Petitioner and to create a ground for review of the judgment dated 30-10-1972. I have perused the said report very carefully and I am of the opinion that it appears that the process server had affixed the notice at the house of Petitioner Jeet Narain as he was not available. In face of this report, the endorsement regarding service of notice on Ram Raj Shukul for Jeet Narain appears to be nothing else but a clear manipulation. Since no other endorsement was made by the process server besides the one quoted above, I am unable to accept the averment made in para 19 of the counter affidavit to the effect that the process server's report, extracted above, was subsequently added. The said report indicates that the process server had affixed summons at the door of the Petitioner's residence as he was not available and there is no reason to disbelieve that report. In view of this report I am unable to accept that summons was served on Ram Raj Shukul for the Petitioner. The said report indicates that the process server had affixed summons at the door of the Petitioner's residence as he was not available and there is no reason to disbelieve that report. In view of this report I am unable to accept that summons was served on Ram Raj Shukul for the Petitioner. Besides that service of notice on the brother of guardian is not a valid service of notice to minor in the eye of law. 7. Apart from it, a perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation Indicates that he had passed the order after making local inspection and hearing both the parties. In the order it is not mentioned as to who represented the minor Petitioner at the time of local inspection and at the time of hearing of revision by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. Since Petitioner is a minor and as such hearing of Petitioner, even if made, cannot meet the requirement of law. A minor is to be represented at the time of hearing by his guardian. It is not clear from the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation that he had heard the guardian of the Petitioner or that he had made local inspection in presence of the guardian of the Petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 further referred to averments contained in Para 16 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been asserted that a portion of plot No. 167-M, which is situate in front of their house has been allotted to them for the purpose of Sehan land. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that no land can be allotted to a tenure-holder u/s 20 of the Act for the purpose of Abadi or Sehan land being located adjacent to the Abadi. It is not disputed that this plot in question is a cultivatory plot forming part of the original holding of the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, thus, urged that there can be no legal justification for allotment of said land to the opposite parties for the aforesaid purpose and even otherwise the said land could not be allotted to them. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, thus, urged that there can be no legal justification for allotment of said land to the opposite parties for the aforesaid purpose and even otherwise the said land could not be allotted to them. Learned Counsel for the opposite parties urged that since the residential house and Dalan of the opposite parties is situate near by, hence this portion of plot in question, which lies in front of their Abadi can very well be allotted to them for the purpose of being used as Sehan land and for the extension of Abadi. I have carefully considered the arguments and I find much substance in the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 9. No tenure holder can be allotted any land by the consolidation authorities merely for the purpose of extension of Abadi or for using it as Sehan land, if he is not otherwise entitled to get the land allotted to him in his chak near village Abadi. If a tenure-holder is holding some land in his original holding near village Abadi, he can certainly be allotted land in his chak to that extent at that place. He may or may not utilise that plot for cultivatory purpose and may use it for extension of Abadi or for use as 'Sehan' land. But if he had no land near village Abadi in his original holding, he would not be entitled to get a chak allotted near Abadi merely on the ground that his house is situated near the land in question and he would require that land for being utilised as his Sehan or for extension of his Abadi. No land can be allotted to him at the cost of other tenure holders merely for the aforesaid purpose if he is not otherwise entitled to get a chak allotted to him near village Abadi as aforesaid. The consolidation authorities can certainly make necessary reservation of land for the purpose of extension of Abadi, but such land would belong to the Gaon Sabha to be allotted by it in accordance with the provisions contained In U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The consolidation authorities can certainly make necessary reservation of land for the purpose of extension of Abadi, but such land would belong to the Gaon Sabha to be allotted by it in accordance with the provisions contained In U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. No land can, however be reserved nor it can be allotted by the consolidation authorities to any particular Individual tenure holder merely on the ground that he would require it for the extension of Abadi or for being utilised as Sehan land, if otherwise he is not entitled to get a chak allotted to him at that place near village Abadi as mentioned above. 10. In the present case, the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 have not indicated in the impugned orders as to whether the opposite parties had held any land near village Abadi so as to entitle them to allotment of chak on the plot in question. Since I am remanding the case for decision afresh, the Settlement Officer, Consolidation would now take into consideration the said material question. He would decide the appeal after making local inspection, which he would make after giving notice to the parties. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation, would also prepare spot inspection memo and site-plan and bring the same on record so as to give opportunity to the parties to make their submissions on its basis. The requirement of preparation of spot inspection memo is not merely a formality, but it has to be prepared so as to give opportunity to the parties to file objections, if any, against it (See Rama Shanker Upadhyaya v. Deputy Director of Consolidation Varanasi, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4845 of 1982, decided on August 16, 1982). 11. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned orders dated 26-7-1974 (Annexure-V) and 30-10-1972 (Annexure-IV) passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation and order dated 12-4-1968 (Annexure II) passed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, are hereby quashed and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation, is directed to restore the appeal to its original number and to decide it on merits in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above. 12. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.