JUDGMENT : (Saurabh Lavania, J.) 1. Heard Sri J.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. The issuance of notice to private respondent No. 4/Mahmood Ahmad is hereby dispensed with. It is for the reasons that the facts of the case, which this Court would be considering, and the same could not be improved by way of an affidavit even if respondent No. 4 appears before this Court and process of issuance of notice would delay disposal of this petition as also the dispute between the parties. 3. By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following main reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned 4.1.2021 passed by opposite party order dated No.2 contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land Gata No. 1404 area 0.512 hectare, situated in Village Fula, Pargana Inhauna, Tehsil Tiiloi, District Amethi." 4. Brief facts of the case are to the effect that challenging the order dated 17.05.1989 passed by Consolidation Officer, Gauriganj, District-Amethi, the respondent No. 4/Mahmood Ahmad preferred a revision under Section 48(3) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (in short "Act of 1953") in the month of September, 2020, as appears from the record. 5. The revision was filed claiming rights over Khata No. 390 new Gata No. 1404/0.512 Hectare (old Gata Nos. 780 and 781). 6. The revisional authority/Additional District Magistrate (J)/Deputy Director of Consolidation on 01.09.2020 directed the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Amethi/Assistant Consolidation Officer Rule 109 Tiloi to submit the report. 7. Thereafter, on 08.09.2020, the SOC directed the Consolidation Officer, Gauriganj, District-Amethi to submit the report. 8. In response, Consolidation Officer, Gauriganj, District-Amethi on 07.10.2020 directed the Assistant Consolidation Officer Rule 109 Tiloi to submit the report. 9. Thereafter, a report i.e. Reference No. 87/2020-2021 was prepared on 21.12.2020 and submitted before the revisional authority/respondent No. 2/Additional District Magistrate (J)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Amethi (in short "DDC"). The report dated 21.12.2020 on reproduction reads as under:- 10. 9. Thereafter, a report i.e. Reference No. 87/2020-2021 was prepared on 21.12.2020 and submitted before the revisional authority/respondent No. 2/Additional District Magistrate (J)/Deputy Director of Consolidation, District Amethi (in short "DDC"). The report dated 21.12.2020 on reproduction reads as under:- 10. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 approved the aforesaid report without recording any reasons and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by a non-speaking order dated 04.01.2021, impugned herein. The order of DDC being relevant is reproduced hereunder:- ^^;Fkk izLrkfor vuqeksfnrA^^ 11. As per law including the language couched under Section 48(3) of the Act of 1953, opportunity of hearing should be provided to the concerned. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment dated 12.09.1966 passed by this Court in the case of Durga Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in MANU/UP/0361/1966. In the instant case, it appears from the record as also from the impugned order dated 04.01.2021 passed by DDC that no opportunity was provided to the petitioners, as such, interference in the matter is required. 12. In view of aforesaid, the instant petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 04.01.2021 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 2, who shall pass fresh order in the matter strictly in accordance with law after providing proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously.