JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. - This petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation in reference proceedings u/s 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, (for short the Act). 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass and they are these. In the basic year the Petitioners were recorded tenure holders in respect of plot Nos. 243, 254, 255, 260, 159 and 201. In case No. 3799 an objection was filed by the Petitioners that these plots may be partitioned amongst the Petitioners and each Petitioner has 1/3 share. On 27-1-72 the Assistant Consolidation Officer in a conciliation proceeding directed each Petitioner to have 1/3 share. This order was also incorporated in CH Form 23. Some proceedings under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960, (tor short Ceiling Act), were also pending. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Konch, as the Prescribed Authority, had declared these plots as surplus. The total area of these plots was 17.04 acre. The Petitioners have filed a suit u/s 229B of the UP ZA and LR Act indicating that these plots belong to Deoki Nandan, their father and the second appeal in that suit was still pending. In case No. 2956 the Sub-Divisional Officer, Konch, sent information that these plots being declared surplus under the Ceiling Act, must be kept apart in the name of State of U.P. and need not be included in the holding of any person. On that basis the Reference u/s 48(3) of the Act was prepared and sent to the Asstt. Director of Consolidation for approval. He, however, accepted the same with modification by the impugned order. 3. Sri G.N. Verma appearing for the Petitioners urged that admittedly the Petitioners were minors. In view of Rule 14 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, (for short Rules), no guardian was appointed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer in consultation with the consolidation committee, nor such appointment was published for the perusal by public, nor objections were invited. The notices were also not served on the guardian rather they were served on the minors as is clear from Annexure-8 to the petition. Under Rule 58(2) of the Rules, the notice must have been served on the guardian personally. The notices were also not served on the guardian rather they were served on the minors as is clear from Annexure-8 to the petition. Under Rule 58(2) of the Rules, the notice must have been served on the guardian personally. In case the guardian was not available at his residence, the notice must have been served by affixation, but the same was not done. The Petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing. This fact was evident from a bare perusal of the impugned order. The principles of natural justice have been violated. The impugned orders deserves to be quashed. 4. Sri Bhagwati Prasad, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has very strenuously urged that the Petitioners were personally served or in any case their guardian was served. u/s 11(C) of the Act the land has correctly been directed to be recorded in true name of State. The impugned order was correct. The order under the Ceiling Act would operate as res-judicata and unless the same was set aside the Petitioners cannot get any relief. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be said to be without substance. It is a fact that the Petitioners attentions. This fact was admitted in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of U.P. But it was stated that the guardian was appointed and the notice was served on the guardian. Rule 14 of the Rules makes it evident that the guardian has to be appointed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, to every minor. A person to be appointed as a guardian must be natural guardian unless his interest is adverse to that of the . guardian ,in that case reasons have to be recorded and thereafter near relation of I the minor can be appointed in consultation with the Consolidation Committee. ' Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 of the Rules provides that such appointment of the I guardian must be published and objections can be filed within 15 days before | the Consolidation Officer, who shall decide the same. In the instant case nothing was done in accordance with this procedure. The non-appointment of guardian coupled with non service of notice on the guardian would render the impugned order vitiated. 6. It has to be ascertained as to how notices were served on the I Petitioners. In the instant case nothing was done in accordance with this procedure. The non-appointment of guardian coupled with non service of notice on the guardian would render the impugned order vitiated. 6. It has to be ascertained as to how notices were served on the I Petitioners. Annexure-8 to the petition is the true copy of the notices sent to the petitioner informing them about the date fixed in the Reference u/s 48(3) of the Act. This makes abundantly clear that notices were sent in the name of minors without appointing any guardian. Rule 58 provides procedure how notices have to be served. Paras 23 and 24 of the writ petition is about non-service of notice on the Petitioners and it has been replied in para 14 of the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The contents of para 14 of the Counter Affidavit are reproduced below: 14. That the contents of paras 23 and 24 of the petition are denied. It is wrong to say that the notices were not sent to the Petitioners. The notices were sent to them separately and the same were received by them. 7. Even in the counter affidavit it was admitted that the notices were sent to the Petitioners, who were minors. It has not been stated in para 14 of the counter affidavit that they were served through guardian appointed Under Rule 14. It is accordingly crystal clear that no guardian was appointed to the Petitioners nor notices were served in view of the procedure prescribed Under Rule 58. There is nothing to indicate that notices were first sought to be served on the guardian by using due diligence and after refusal or non availability the notices were served by affixation. I am of the view that procedure about service of notices Under Rule 58 is imperative and non service would vitiate the proceedings. 8. The next submission was about the denial of the reasonable opportunity of hearing or in other words about the violation of the principles of natural justice. The notices were served by affixation not on the guardian of the minor Petitioners but on the latter personally. None of the Petitioners turned up on the date fixed for hearing The Petitioners being minors did not engage any counsel nor they were heard nor served through their guardian. The notices were served by affixation not on the guardian of the minor Petitioners but on the latter personally. None of the Petitioners turned up on the date fixed for hearing The Petitioners being minors did not engage any counsel nor they were heard nor served through their guardian. Section 48(3) of the Act enacts that no order in reference can be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The provisions of Section 48(3) are mandatory and make no exceptions. Apart from the statutory provision of Section 48(3), the general principles of natural justice contained in the maxim ' Audi alteram partem ' (i. e. before deciding legal rights of a party, hear the other side also), would also apply with all force. When a court, tribunal or authority is invested with powers to affect the property of a citizen, it should afford sufficient reasonable opportunity of hearing. In other words, no person can be deprived of his right in property or of any other valuable right involving civil consequences unless the reasonable opportunity of hearing has been granted. See also Lapointe and L. Association (1906) AC 535 Smith v. Queen (1878) AC 614. The adequacy of notice may, however, vary according to the nature of proceedings. But in every case it is for the court or tribunal to decide as to whether notices have been sufficiently served and as to whether the person against whom order is sought to be passed has also sufficient reasonable opportunity to reply the same. In the present case guardian was not appointed to the Petitioners and notices were sent in the names of Petitioners who were minors No notice was sent to the guardian nor saved on him according to Rule 58. Even if the notices sent to the minor is assumed to have been served but under law a minor has got incapacity to either receive notices in his own capacity or to reply the same or be heard. In this view of the matter the principles of natural justice were violated and Petitioners were neither legally served nor had reasonable opportunity of being heard. 9. In this view of the matter the principles of natural justice were violated and Petitioners were neither legally served nor had reasonable opportunity of being heard. 9. As regards the lost submission on behalf of the State about the effect of Section 11(C) of the Act, suffice it to say that Section 11(C) of the Act enacts an exceptional procedure in favour of public authorities that even though no objection might have been filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha u/s 9 or 9A(2) nevertheless if the court is of the view that the land was vested in the Gaon Sabha or the State Government, it can direct the land to vest in the Gaon Sabha. In the instant case there is nothing to indicate that the findings have been recorded that the land would vest in the Gaon Sabha or State or that no objections were filed. The principal question involved was as to whether Petitioners were legally served and heard and further as to what shall be the effect of order under the Ceiling Act. Section 11(C) of the Act is besides the point. 10. The next submission on behalf of the State was that the proceedings under the Ceiling Act became final and those orders would operate as res judicata. I am not recording any finding on merit against the validity of those orders passed under the Ceiling Act or its effect during consolidation operations. It shall be open to the State to raise those objections and to press that the orders under the Ceiling Act has become final, consequently must be given effect to, when the matter is again being heard in pursuance of the order of remand being passed in the instant case. 11. In view of what has been stated hereinbefore, the impugned order of the Assistant Director of Consolidation cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. 12. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs and the impugned order dated 8-8-74 is hereby quashed. The case is remanded to the Respondent No. 1 to decide it again in accordance with law, keeping in view the observations made above. It shall, however, be open to the State to press all the objections about finality of orders under the Ceiling Act, and its effect. As the matter has dragged on for too long, what is required, however, is expedition.