JUDGMENT K.N. Misra, J. - Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioners Late Mohd. Husain was tenure-holder of plot Nos. 8590, 8591, 8592 and 4593 along with certain other plots which were recorded in his name in Khata No. 17 situate in village Shekhana. Mohd. Husain is said to have died on 30th December, 1977 and the names of the petitioners were ordered to be mutated by order dated 3rd October, 1983. It appears that a reference was forwarded by the Settlement Officer. Consolidation on October 9, 1980 for the reservation of the aforesaid four plots of said holding Khata No. 17 for the purposes of Higher Secondary School. This reference was accepted by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated June 9, 1982 and the said plots were reserved for the said purpose. It has been averred in the writ petition that after mutation of the names of the petitioners, they had preferred an objection on August 13, 1984 under Section 20 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) praying that the aforesaid plots be allotted in their chak of which they are the tenure-holders. This objection was filed by the petitioners against the proposed allotment of chak as against their original holding. The objection against allotment of chaks was rejected by the consolidation officer on November 28, 1984. Aggrieved by it the petitioners preferred appeal under Section 21 of the Act which was dismissed by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on merits vide order dated February 15, 1985. Still feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioners preferred revision which is said to be pending before the Deputy Director of Consolidation. 2. It has been further averred that the petitioners had come to know on November 26, 1984 about the aforesaid order dated June 9, 1982 by which the District Deputy Director of Consolidation had reserved the said four plots for Higher Secondary School. This information they had gathered through the Pradhan of the village. Since the aforesaid plots were ordered to be reserved for said purposes without any notice to the petitioners, and as, such they filed an application before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation on November 30, 1984 for setting aside order dated June 9, 1982. An application for condonation of delay was also filed. Since the aforesaid plots were ordered to be reserved for said purposes without any notice to the petitioners, and as, such they filed an application before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation on November 30, 1984 for setting aside order dated June 9, 1982. An application for condonation of delay was also filed. The petitioners had asserted that no notice was issued to them nor they were informed about said proceedings in respect of said plots, and, as such, the said ex-parte order, which has resulted in great prejudice to them, be set aside. It was further asserted that the petitioners deserved to be allotted chak on said plots which belong to their original holding and the same should not have been reserved for the said purpose. They would stand materially prejudiced if the said order dated June 9, 1982 would not be set aside. This application was heard and dismissed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated June 24, 1985. Aggrieved by it the petitioner have preferred this writ petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Syed Husain and Sri R.N. Gupta, Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4, Gaon Sabha, Jais. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that since no notice was served on the petitioners in respect of the reference proceedings for the purpose of reservation of said plots, and, as such, the order dated June 9, 1982 deserved to be set aside so that the petitioners should get an opportunity to contest the reference. This objection also appears to have been raised and pressed before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation, but the learned District Deputy Director of Consolidation rejected the restoration application with the observation that since the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had visited the spot at various stages while submitting reference and the modified proposal was approved by the Chakbandi Samiti, and, as such, it appears very difficult to him to believe that the petitioner had no knowledge of such happenings in the village. It has also been mentioned in the order that there is no evidence to show that Mohd. Husain died in the year 1977. It has also been mentioned in the order that there is no evidence to show that Mohd. Husain died in the year 1977. It has also been observed that the petitioners have not been able to show that irreparable lose would be caused to them if the said plots are reserved for the aforesaid purposes learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the aforesaid reasons given by the Deputy Director of Consolidation while dismissing the restoration application are erroneous and the order cannot be sustained. I find much substance in these arguments. 4. It is well settled that subordinate Consolidation authorities can make a reference to the District Deputy Director of Consolidation under Section 48(3) of the Act but it can be done after giving ample opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. It is not disputed that these plots belonged to Khata No. 17 of which Mohd. Husain was the tenure-holder. He is said to have died on 30th December, 1977. Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that an application for mutation was moved by the petitioners on 21st March, 1978 and the mutation case was decided vide order dated October 3, 1978. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed before me for perusal a copy of application for mutation which was moved by the petitioners on 21st March, 1978. There can, thus, be no doubt that Mohd. Husain had died prior to said date. If Mohd. Husain was alive on October 9, 1980 when the reference was forwarded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation then a notice ought to have been issued to Mohd. Husain before forwarding the reference. The Settlement Officer, Consolidation could not forward the reference without affording opportunity to the recorded tenure-holder or if he had died, to the heirs of the recorded tenure-holder. Learned District Deputy Director of Consolidation has observed that since the Settlement Officer, Consolidation had visited the village at various stages, and, as such, it is difficult to believe that the petitioners had no knowledge about these proceedings. This an altogether erroneous view. Even if we assume that the petitioners could gather knowledge about the proceedings in respect of reference proceedings, the requirement of law regarding affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned tenure-holder before making reference cannot be said to have been followed. A notice for hearing in the reference proceedings ought to have been issued to Mohd. Even if we assume that the petitioners could gather knowledge about the proceedings in respect of reference proceedings, the requirement of law regarding affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned tenure-holder before making reference cannot be said to have been followed. A notice for hearing in the reference proceedings ought to have been issued to Mohd. Husain if he was alive or to his legal heirs. The question whether aforesaid plots should or should not have been reserved for the aforesaid purpose should have been decided by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation after giving notice to the concerned tenure-holder. He has also not issued any notice to the petitioners while passing order dated June 9, 1982 accepting reference submitted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation for the reservation of the aforesaid plots for Higher Secondary School. Thus, the impugned order dated June 9, 1982, being an ex-parte order, deserved to be set aside as no notice was served on the petitioners before passing that order. Since the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity to oppose the reservation of their plots for the Higher Secondary School, and, as such, without affording an opportunity to the petitioners to state their case, nothing could be said as to whether they would suffer irreparable loss by the reservation of the said plots for Higher Secondary School or not. Learned District Deputy Director of Consolidation, after recalling the order dated June 9, 1982, ought to have given opportunity to the petitioners to file their objection against the proposed reservation in respect of which reference was forwarded by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation under Section 48(3) of the Act. 5. Thus, in view of the above, I find that the impugned order dated June 24, 1985 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation rejecting the restoration application moved by the petitioners cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the order dated June 24, 1985 passed by the District Deputy Director of Consolidation Rae Bareli, is hereby quashed and setting aside order dated June 9, 1982, he is directed to restore the reference submitted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and decide it afresh according to law and in the light of observations made above after giving opportunity to the petitioners to file their objection against the reservation. Learned District Deputy Director of Consolidation shall also issue notice to the petitioners and also the Gaon Sabha, Jais fixing an early date for the decision in the said reference submitted by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation. 7. No order as to costs.