JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - The preset petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10-4-86 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Jaunpur rejecting the revision of the Petitioners in a case arising out of an application made by some persons complaining that some portion of land of the Gaon Sabha of village Mahuari has been occupied by nobody else than the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha himself whose legal duty as an elected Pradhan was to protect the land of the Gaon Sabha. On that application an enquiry was held in respect of which the Petitioner has information. In that enquiry it was found that the land in respect of which application was moved was of the Gaon Sabha. This enquiry was treated to be an administrative enquiry and the result of the enquiry or the report thereof was not given to the Petitioners. A direction was issued that aggrieved persons namely the persons recorded, may be given an opportunity of being heard before the entries in revenue papers were expunged. The direction was that as other stages including that of Section 9 of the UP CH Act (for short the Act) were over, the Reference proceedings u/s 48(3) of the Act can be initiated. 2. In fact, the Settlement Officer Consolidation in His voider, dated 11-10-83 directed that the entries in the names of the Petitioners of any tenure holder over the land of the Gaon Sabha can be corrected by Reference proceedings u/s 48(3). The Petitioners' revision was dismissed, hence the instant petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged that the Petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing when administrative proceedings were going on the complaint of residents ot the village against the alleged encroachment or grabbing of the land of Gaon Sabha by the Petitioners, and that the report of the. Administrative enquiry was not given to the Petitioners. Consequently there was violation of principles of natural justice. In support of the submission State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei AIR 1977 SC 1269 was relied upon. 4. Having heard the counsel for the Petitioners I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merits. Administrative enquiry was not given to the Petitioners. Consequently there was violation of principles of natural justice. In support of the submission State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei AIR 1977 SC 1269 was relied upon. 4. Having heard the counsel for the Petitioners I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merits. As regards the submission that the Petitioners must have been afforded opportunity of hearing and must have been served with notices when the enquiry was being conducted by the relevant autftofities to ascertain the truth of the allegations in the 'application oi the villagers that the persons including the Petitioners have occupied unlawfully the land of the Gaon Sabha. Suffice it to say that the enquiry was of administrative in nature and by the result of the enquiry the rights of the Petitioners were not going to be affected. In fact, this was1 just a fact finding 'enquiry to ascertain as to whether there was any truth in the application of villagers that the Petitioners have grabbed the land of the Gaon' Sabha. By the result of the enquiry the rights of the Petitioners were not to be affected nor were entries in revenue papers in their names to be expunged. This was just an administrative enquiry with no relief to the persons who moved the application nor by the result of this-enquiry any right or interest of the Petitioners was to be put in jeopardy nor the. same was to be adversely effected. In these circumstances no opportunity off hearing was nicety to the Petitioners while administrative enquiry was in progress. 5. It is better to make a reference to the principles of justice (AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM) as enunciated in Judicial Review of' Administrative Action fey "S.A. de Smith (111 Edn. p. 139) to the following effect: There' are indications that this principle may by applied with particular vigour where the sanction imposed will deprive a person of his livelihood or where there is a charge of discreditable conduct. But in the instant case by holding an administrative inquiry just to ascertain whether the land of the Gaon Sabha has been encroached upon by the Petitioners or not neither the Petitioners were deprived of their livelihood nor there was any charge of discreditable conduct. Hence there was no question Of applying' the principle of natural justice. 6. But in the instant case by holding an administrative inquiry just to ascertain whether the land of the Gaon Sabha has been encroached upon by the Petitioners or not neither the Petitioners were deprived of their livelihood nor there was any charge of discreditable conduct. Hence there was no question Of applying' the principle of natural justice. 6. Similarly on page 141 of the said authoritative book it has been stated as follows: Where a duly to observe the audi alteram partem rule does arise] it may still be subject to important qualifications. The rules of natural1 justice are not tigid norms of unchanging contents, and their ambit may vary according to the eoatext Only four years after the decision in Board of Education v. Rice, 1911-AC 179 the House of Lords held in A. Bridge's case 1915 AC 120 that a Government Department determining a housing appeal was' not obliged to divulge one of its news paper report to the Appellant even the report might well have coriteined the relevant statements prejudicial to his case which he might have wished to controvert. 7. It is thus-obvious that under the circumsljaBces of ,the (present case that administrative inquiry was not going to have any adverse evections the. rights of the Petitioners inasmuch as even though the result of the inquiry was that the land of the Gaon Sabha appears to be encroached upon by the Petitioners, the judicial inquiry was still to commence. It is to be remembered -that under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act there is no such provision that some persons of the village may make an application claiming no relief to themselves but just to remind the relevant"' authorities about the land of the public utility being encroached upon by some persons without any right. The result of the inquiry on such application was just with a view to remind the relevant authorities about the encroachment on the land of public utility. The authorities were also to ascertain whether such application made, did contain correct allegations or not. The result of the inquiry WASJ received and the direction was issued that the proceedings for reference u/s 48(3) of the Act may be initiated as the stage for filing objections against the Petitioners on behalf of the Gaon Sabha was over. The authorities were also to ascertain whether such application made, did contain correct allegations or not. The result of the inquiry WASJ received and the direction was issued that the proceedings for reference u/s 48(3) of the Act may be initiated as the stage for filing objections against the Petitioners on behalf of the Gaon Sabha was over. In case the reference proceedings are initiated, the same would be in accordance with the provisions contained u/s 48(3) of the Act and, the Legislature was wise enough to provide that no order u/s 48 of the Act can be, passed without hearing the persons aggrieved. In that judicial proceedings the Petitioners would have ; sufficient opportunity to controvert the allegations made by the authorities against their interest. The Petitioners would be free to lead such evidence as they like to substantiate their claims. In the administrative proceedings the Petitioners were neither parties nor it was necessary to hear them nor to serve, them with any notice. I am accordingly of tbet viewi that, the, principles of natural justice would not apply to the administrative inquiry made against the Petitioners. 8. 8', As! regards the next point that the Petitioners must have been given a' report of the administrative inquiry, suffice it to say that as the rjghts of tfie Petitioners fare not affected by, the administrative inquiry and. the same has no', adverse effect on the Petitioners' interest, in that event the report of the administrative inquiry was not necessary to be given to the Petitioners. 9. In The D.F.O., South Kheri and Others Vs. Ram Sanehi Singh, AIR 1973 SC 205 it -was held that, if the administrative ,order affects the rights of the properties of, persons the order has to be passed in the manner consonant with the rules of, natural justice. ; In the instant case, -the administrative order did not affect the properties and rights of the Petitioners ,and in) the. judicial proceedings initiated lateron u/s 48(3) of the Act the Petitioners would be given sufficient opportunity of hearing. The Petitioners cannot, therefore, be adversely affected by the administrative inquiry or the result thereof. 10. As regards the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. judicial proceedings initiated lateron u/s 48(3) of the Act the Petitioners would be given sufficient opportunity of hearing. The Petitioners cannot, therefore, be adversely affected by the administrative inquiry or the result thereof. 10. As regards the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binopani Dei (Supra) suffice it to say that was a case entirely on different facts inasmuch as it'that case the date of birth was changed without giving an opportunity of hearing.; Hence that case stands entirely on different footings.: 11. In view of what has been stated above, there are no merits in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. 12. In the result the petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed summarily.