JUDGMENT J.N. Dubey, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 7-11-1986 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision of respondent no. 1 under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. It is stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the impugned order was passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation without any notice to the petitioner. This fact has not been controverted in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 1. However, in paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that both the petitioner and his son were present in the court of the Deputy Director of Consolidation at the time of argument of the revision. Once the petitioner did not receive any notice of revision from the court of the Deputy Director of Consolidation there was hardly any occasion for him or his son to be present before him in the court at the time of argument. It is now well settled that if no notice is sent to a person even if he happens to be in court for some reason that cannot be considered to be a proper opportunity of hearing to him. 2. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 7-11-1986 of the Deputy Director of Consolidation is set aside, He is directed to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to costs. 3. Certified copies of this order may be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties within a week on payment of usual charges.