JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Heard. Some of the villagers of village Prathamakhandi have filed this writ application challenging the orders passed under Annexures 6 and 7 relating to bifurcation of Prathamakhandi village and creation of a new village to be known as Gopalpur. Since the matter was pending in High Court, the State Government has issued a direction to the Settlement Officer under Annexure-l0 not to proceed with the matter till finalisation of the writ application in the High Court. 2. Rule 61 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Rules which contemplates the procedure relating to declaration of villages is quoted hereunder: "61. Procedure for declaration of villages - (1) Where proceedings in pursuance of an order made under Sections 11, 18 or 36 are in progress, the Settlement Officer may, if he deems fit, start proceedings for effecting changes in the boundaries of an existing village or for constitution of a new village : Provided that when a portion of the village has been declared or will be declared to be a reserved forest under the provisions of Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 16 of 1927 or Section 16 of the Madras Forest Act, 1882 (Madras Act 5 of 1882) or when a portion of the village has been deemed to be a reserved forest u/s 20A of the Indian Forest Act 16 of 1927, the changes in the boundaries of the village shall be effected according to such declaration or the deeming provisions, as the case may be, and it shall not be necessary to start proceedings under this rule for effecting such changes. (2) Such proceedings shall be started before attestation of the draft record-of-rights or fixation of fair and equitable rent, as the case may be. (3) At the commencement of the proceedings, the Settlement Officer or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf, shall issue a general notice in Form No. 11 inviting objections to the proposed changes in the boundaries of an existing village or to the constitution of a new village, as the case may be, such notice shall be published in the manner provided in Rule 6 and a copy of the notice shall be transmitted to the Collector. (4) Objections, if any, received within the period specified in the notice, which shall not be less than thirty days from the date of service of the notice, shall be considered by the Settlement Officer along with opinion of the Collector, if any, received during the said period. He shall then forward his proposals with a summary of the objections and opinion of the Collector, if any, to the Board of Revenue for orders : Provided that when the proceedings are conducted by an officer other than the Settlement Officer under Sub-rule (3), the objections and opinions of the Collector, if any, shall be considered by him and he shall thereafter submit his proposals to the Settlement Officer who shall formulate and forward his proposals with a summary of objections and opinions of the Collector to the Board of Revenue for orders. (5) On receipt of the proposals from the Settlement Officer, the Board of Revenue may sanction or with or without amendment or may return the same for revision by the Settlement Officer or for further enquiry : Provided that before passing final orders on the proposals of the Settlement Officer, the Board of Revenue may, if it considers necessary give a hearing to any person or persons who have filed objections in response to the notice under Sub-rule (3). (6) The attestation of the draft record-of-rights and fixation of fair and equitable rent, as the case may be, shall be taken up only after giving effect to the orders of the Board of Revenue in the map and the draft record-of-rights, as the case may be. (6) The attestation of the draft record-of-rights and fixation of fair and equitable rent, as the case may be, shall be taken up only after giving effect to the orders of the Board of Revenue in the map and the draft record-of-rights, as the case may be. (7) The aforesaid powers of the Settlement Officer shall be exercised by the Collector when proceedings in pursuance of an order made under Sections 11, 18 or 36 are not in progress : Provided that no notice required to be issued to the Collector in Sub-rule (3) shall be necessary in such a case : Provided further that on receipt of orders of the Board of Revenue, the Collector shall transmit a copy thereof to the Tahsildar for effecting necessary corrections in the map and record under Chapter-IV of these rules." It is clear that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 61 contemplates that the Settlement Officer or the authorised officer is to issue notice inviting objection to the proposed changes in the boundaries of an existing village and Sub-rule (4) contemplates that objection has to be filed within the specified period. Sub-rule (4) further contemplates that such objection shall be considered by the Settlement Officer and thereafter the Settlement Officer shall forward his proposal alongwith summary of the objection and the opinion of the Collector, if any, to the Board of Revenue for orders. It is not disputed that the expression "Board of Revenue" for the aforesaid purpose includes the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement. Thereafter, under Sub-rule (5) of Rule 61, the prescribed authority is to deal with the proposal from the Settlement Officer. Proviso to Sub-rule (5) contemplates that opportunity of hearing may be afforded to the objectors. 3. In the above background of the" procedural requirements, the present case is to be judged. There is no dispute that objections were filed on behalf of the present petitioner. However, the Collector had not furnished any opinion. It further appears that the Commissioner has not given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who had filed objection. Even though the proviso contemplates that the Board of Revenue may, if it considers necessary, give a hearing, principles of natural justice require that such opportunity should be given to the objectors unless, for weighty reasons, it is decided by the Board of Revenue not to afford such opportunity of hearing. Even though the proviso contemplates that the Board of Revenue may, if it considers necessary, give a hearing, principles of natural justice require that such opportunity should be given to the objectors unless, for weighty reasons, it is decided by the Board of Revenue not to afford such opportunity of hearing. Since in the present case, such opportunity has not been given and opinion of the Collector has not been elicited, I deem it just and proper to remand the matter to the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement (opposite party No. 2) for fresh disposal. The Commissioner shall obtain necessary opinion from the Collector and give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who have filed objection and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations in the earlier order. In order to facilitate early disposal of the matter, the present petitioners are directed to appear before the Commissioner through lawyer or in person on 1st August, 2000. 4. The writ application is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.