JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral):- The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, exercising the powers of the State Government under Section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’) dated 13.06.1968. 2. Vide the aforesaid order, the land measuring 9 marlas comprising in Khasra No.76/4 was allocated to Tek Ram, since represented by respondent No.3 herein, from the land allotted to the petitioners. The petitioners were allotted 10 marlas land comprising in Khasra No.64/11 in lieu of the said land. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in a petition under Section 42 of the Act, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition, Bhagwana and Tek Ram son of Nathu were said to be the persons likely to be affected by the order which may be passed in such petition. But impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioners. The land allotted to the petitioners during the course of process of consolidation has been changed without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Therefore, the orders passed suffers from denial of principles of natural justice for not giving opportunity of hearing. It is pointed out that on the basis of impugned order, the mutation was sanctioned only 09.06.1993 when the petitioners came to know about the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings and soon thereafter the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4. On the other hand Mr. Hooda, learned counsel representing legal heirs of respondent No.3 argues that a perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 shows that at the time of the passing of the impugned order on 13.06.1968, Charan Singh son of Jai Lal was present. Therefore it cannot be said that the order has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who is grand son of Jai Lal. Mr. Hooda also relies upon the revenue record (Annexure R-4/2) pointing out that Tek Ram transferred 16 marlas of land out of Khasra No.76/4 and also some land in Khasra No.76/4 for which mutation was sanctioned on 28.07.1974. 5. Mr. Hooda also relies upon the revenue record (Annexure R-4/2) pointing out that Tek Ram transferred 16 marlas of land out of Khasra No.76/4 and also some land in Khasra No.76/4 for which mutation was sanctioned on 28.07.1974. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the order passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation of Holdings, exercising the powers of the State Government on 13.06.1968 suffers from violation of the principles of natural justice. The persons likely to be affected were Bhagwana and Tek Ram in a petition under Section 42 of the Act. The presence of Charan Singh son of Jai Lal at the time of the passing of the impugned order will not be deemed to be representation of the petitioners who are grandsons of Jai Lal but through Bhola Ram, another son of Jai Lal. Whether Charan Singh or Bhola Ram are independent owners of land cannot be made out from the record available, but the fact remains that the rights of Jai Lal through his legal heirs could not be effected without giving an opportunity of hearing to them. The cause of action arose to the petitioners when the mutation came to their notice in the year 1993. The Jamabandies referred to by Mr. Hooda does not deal with giving effect to the orders passed by the Additional Director, Consolidation. Such record is not relevant to rebut the argument of not providing any opportunity of hearing or that the petitioners came to know about the order passed in the year 1993 only. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find that the order (Annexure P-1) and the consequent mutation sanctioned on the basis of that order suffers from patent illegality and irrationality. The same is set aside. The Additional Director, Consolidation, or any such officer who is competent to exercise the powers of State Government under Section 42 of the Act shall decide the petition (Annexure P-3) in accordance with law after giving notice to all the affected parties. ------------------