High Court · 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary incorporation in the writ petition during course of the day. I.A. No.14 of 2025 - Application for Substitution

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of application, the application for substitution is allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary incorporation in the writ petition during course of the day. Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan and Sri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional CSC for the respondent - State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.06.1988 passed by passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Lucknow - Annexure - 4 and order dated 03.11.1988 passed by Additional Commissioner - Annexure -11 and order dated 17.10.1995 passed by Board of Revenue - respondent No.1 annexure 12 to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is bhumidhar of land in question and his name was recorded along with other co-sharers. Village Miranpur Pinwat, where the land in question lies, was notified under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and consolidation operations were taken in the 3 village in 1372 F. and after the consolidation operations, the name of petitioner along with other co-sharers continues in the records.

4. During consolidation operations, no objection was filed by any party questioning or challenging the rights of the petitioner or his co-sharers. The recorded co-sharers deposited ten times of the land revenue and became bhumidhar and bhumidhari sanad was granted to them.

5. One of the co-sharers Chhotey Lal having 1/3rd share, transferred his share to the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 10.01.1974 and the mutation was effected in the khetauni in pursuance of the sale deed by vide order of Tehsildar dated

23.09.1977.

6. The petitioner filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and also impleaded the Gaon Sabha, which was decreed and the decree was prepared on 03.04.1980. The petitioner, according to partition decree, became exclusive bhumidhar of plot No.1 minjumla area 2 bighas and 13 minjumla area 4 bighas 8 biswas and 12 biswansi.

7. The petitioner with the aid of Director of Industries got constructed his factory run in the name and style Mahabir Industries for manufacturing utensils of stainless steels and aluminum which is under production since 1975 over the plot in question. The factory of the petitioner has been constructed and all machineries installations have been fixed long before 1975 after considerable investment from the sources available with the petitioner and the petitioner also has his partnership firm and took loan from the bank and factories department and the land is pledged with the Bank of Baroda, Aminabad. 4

8. The factory of the petitioner is registered under Rural Industries Project run within rural areas and the petitioner is also availing the benefits of rural small scale industries registered by Director of Factories. The said industry is also surrounded by boundary walls all around with ground plinth of 3 feet and was 6 feet in height.

9. The Sub Divisional Officer, Lucknow passed an order expunging the name of the petitioner from the khatauni which was incorporated in the khatauni.

10. The petitioner has transferred some portion of the property in dispute to Vijyant Jaiswal, Rishi Jaiswal, Prateek Jaiswal and Anju Jaiswal and has removed the machinery etc from the land in question.

11. The petitioner filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of UPZA & LR Act in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Lucknow. The said suit was decreed by judgment and order dated

10.01.1977. The petitioner also applied for preparation of final decree. The petitioner applied twice for obtaining copy of the said order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 24.06.1988, however, the petitioner was not provided the copy and on enquiry from the clerk concerned, it was disclosed that there was no such file and there was no such order in existence.

12. Petitioner's name was found recorded in C.H. Form No.45 prepared by the consolidation officer. When the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer became known to the petitioner, he filed revision before the Commissioner, Lucknow who also did not direct retrial of the matter on merit in accordance with law. The Additional Commissioner observed that the matter being administrative order, as such the revision was not maintainable. 5

13. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner took the matter in revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by order dated 17.10.1995 dismissed the revision. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

14. Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that respondent Nos.1 & 2 have committed manifest error of law in not deciding the revision on merit as large number of documents were placed on record which fully supported the case of the petitioner to the effect that petitioner's name is coming down for the past 30 years and the petitioner is bhumidhar and in possession but in dismissing the same on incorrect grounds to the effect that the order passed by respondent No.3 being administrative order.

15. He further submitted that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner by the respondent No.1 and without issuing show cause notice to him, respondent No.1 cannot expunge name of the petitioner from khatauni without registering a case for correction of records under Sections 33 & 39 of Land Revenue Act.

16. He submitted that the alleged reports submitted by officials of revenue department has not been proved and no opportunity of hearing in this regard has been afforded to the petitioner to cross examine the officials. In support of his submissions, he relied upon a judgment in the case of Chaturgun and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; CMWP No.14 of 2005 decided on 05.01.2005.

17. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent - State submitted that there is 6 illegality in the impugned orders and the same are just and valid. The writ petition being misconceived is liable to be dismissed.

18. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

19. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are being quoted below: Chaturgun and Ors. (Supra): "1. Entry of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records has been set aside after. 30 years without hearing the petitioner. Additional Deputy Collector and Tehsildar, Deoria gave ex parte report dated 7.10.2004 to the effect that case No. 1489 decided on 6.8.1975 was farzy hence entries in C.H. Form 45 on the, basis of said order were recommended to be cancelled. A.D.M (Finance and Revenue), Deoria on 20.10.2004 in case number letter No. 1/RRK-2004 approved the ex parte report dated 7.10.2004 on the basis of legal opinion given by D.G.C. (Revenue), Deoria dated 14.10.2004, in the said order, which is challenged in this writ petition it is mentioned that there are authorities of High Court, Supreme Court and Board of Revenue to the effect that farzy entry can be cancelled without hearing anyone. In several cases such types of orders are being passed. Whether the entries are farzy or not can be decided only after hearing the person in whose name entry is continuing. The Court completely fails to understand that what harm would have been caused if before passing the impugned order petitioner had been heard. Entry was continuing for 30 years. Revenue authorities/courts often forget the first principle of natural justice that no adverse order can be passed against a person without providing opportunity of hearing to him (audi alteram partem).

7. 7. In the following authorities the Supreme Court has held that even before passing administrative orders affecting rights of parties opportunity of hearing shall be granted : (1) Ashok V. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2298 (It was a case of ban of particular insecticides). (2) Sahi Ram v. Awtar Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2169 (It was a case of mining lease). (3) G. Pharmaceuticals v. State of U. P., AIR 2001 SC 3707 (It was a case of black listing of contractor). 7 (4) H.A. Shakoor v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 2423 (It was a case of reduction of category of a contractor). (5) Director General of Police Vs. M. Sarkar AIR 1997 SC 249 (In this case constables were discharged from service on the ground that they produces a fake list from Employment Exchange without providing opportunity of hearing. Supreme Court approved the order of High Court setting aside discharge order on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing). (6) All India S.C. and S.T. Employees Association Vs. A.A. Jeen, AIR 2001 SC 1851 (In this case hundreds of employees were affected hence Supreme Court held that they might be served in representative capacity). (7) Godawat Pan Masala Products V. Union of India, 2004 (3) SCCD 1281 : AIR 2004 SC 4057 (In this case it was held that notification prohibiting manufacture and sale etc. of pan masala and gutka was bad in law as it had been issued without providing opportunity to the manufactures of meeting the facts relied upon in the notification in respect of injurious effects of pan masala and gutka). (8) Canara Bank V. Debasis Das, 2003 (3) AWC 1853 (SC) : 2003 (2) SCCD 824 : AIR 2003 SC 2041 (In this authority several principles of natural justice expressed in Latin words have been discussed in detail giving their history (since 1215), scope and applicability. Regarding first principle of natural justice that no person shall be punished unheard (audi alteram partem) it has been held that if appellate authority (it was a case of punishment of an employee) grants post decisional hearing then it may be sufficient compliance of requirement of hearing. In this regard reference has been made to C.L. Sahu V. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480. (Concept of useless formality theory has also been adverted to in para 22 but no final opinion in that regard has been expressed).

8. Accordingly, it is held that whenever an entry in the revenue record is to be cancelled and substituted particularly when the entry is continuing for more than a year, notice must be given to the party in whose favour entry stands even if prima facie, authority/court concerned (i.e. Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officer in most of the cases) is of the opinion that the entry is result of fake order or fraud. Similarly if name of an asami pattedar is to be expunged from the revenue records on the ground of expiry of period of patta or any other ground, notice must be given to him before expunging his name. In a recent authority in Hari Ram V. Collector, 2004 (2) RD 360, it has been held by this Court that apart from suit for ejectment under Section 202 of U. P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, asami pattedar may be evicted after expunging his name from the revenue records under 8 Section 34 of U. P. Z.A. and L.R. Act but it can be done only after providing opportunity of hearing to the pattedar/lessee. However if entry is expunged or any other order is passed without hearing the person affected then he is entitled to file an application for post decisional hearing and recall of the order before the Court/ authority which passed the ex parte order. If such an application is filed then the Court/authority concerned shall hear the applicant and in case it comes to the conclusion that the earlier order is not correct then the said order shall be set aside. In such situation it is not necessary to first set aside the order and then hear the party concerned, Alongwith such application such evidence must be filed which the party considers necessary for his case. It has been held by the Supreme Court in A.M.U., Aligarh v. M.A. Khan, 2000 (4) AWC 2993 (SC) ; AIR 2000 SC 2783, that a person who complains about denial of opportunity of hearing must show that in case opportunity had been provided to him, what cause he would have shown or what defence he would have taken. (Similar view has been taken in S.L. Gupta v. A.D. Gupta, 2003 AIR SCW 7089 (para 29) and Canara Bank (supra)]. Against ex parte orders of expunging of names it is not proper to file revision and appeal etc. directly. However, if revision, appeal etc. is directly filed then revisional court/appellate court may also instead of deciding the revision or appeal on merit may grant leave to the affected party to apply for post decisional hearing and recall of order before the trial court/authority. The revisional/appellate authority may also decide the matter on merit after providing opportunity of post decisional hearing (i.e. opportunity to show that earlier entry was not fake) as mentioned in the judgment of Supreme Court in Canara Bank (supra)."

20. In deciding the case respondent Nos.1 & 2 have committed manifest error of law in not deciding the revision on merit as large number of documents were placed on record which fully supported the case of the petitioner to the effect that petitioner's name is coming down for the past 30 years and the petitioner is bhumidhar and in possession but in dismissing the same on incorrect grounds to the effect that the order passed by respondent No.3 being administrative order in nature cannot be justified in law, therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and devoid of merit.

21. The order impugned has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the respondent No.1 and without issuing show cause notice to him. Respondent No.1 9 cannot expunge name of the petitioner from khatauni without registering a case for correction of records under Sections 33 & 39 of Land Revenue Act.

22. The report submitted by the officials of revenue department has not been proved and no opportunity of hearing in this regard has been afforded to the petitioner to cross examine the officials. The entry of the name of petitioner in the revenue record has been decided after 30 years without hearing the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of exparte report to the effect that case by making entries in C.H. Form No.45 on the basis of said order were recommended to be cancelled.

23. It is mentioned that there are authorities of High Court, Supreme Court and Board of Revenue to the effect that farzy entry can be cancelled without hearing anyone. In several cases such types of orders are being passed. Whether the entries are farzy or not can be decided only after hearing the person in whose name entry is continuing. The Court completely fails to understand that what harm would have been caused if before passing the impugned order petitioner had been heard. Entry was continuing for 30 years. Revenue authorities/courts often forget the first principle of natural justice that no adverse order can be passed against a person without providing opportunity of hearing to him (audi alteram partem).

24. A ground in regard to non providing opportunity of hearing and non compliance of principles of natural justice has been taken in paragraph 4 of the grounds taken in the writ petition, reply to which has been given in paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit, wherein there is no specific denial of the ground taken in paragraph 4, thus, it is admitted that no opportunity of hearing 10 was afforded to the petitioner prior to passing of impugned orders.

25. Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the doctrine of principles of natural justice in the case reported in paragraph 19 of the judgment. The fact remains that without giving opportunity of hearing the order has been passed, therefore, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside.

26. In view of reasons recorded above, the orders impugned dated 24.06.1988 passed by passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Lucknow - Annexure - 4 and order dated 03.11.1988 passed by Additional Commissioner - Annexure -11 and order dated

17.10.1995 passed by Board of Revenue - respondent No.1 annexure 12 to the writ petition are hereby quashed.

27. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

28. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 to decide the matter again after affording fullest opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Adarsh K Singh ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary incorporation in the writ petition during course of the day. I.A. No.14 of 2025 - Application for Substitution

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of application, the application for substitution is allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary incorporation in the writ petition during course of the day. Order on Writ Petition

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan and Sri Shivendra Shivam Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shatrughan Chaudhary, learned Additional CSC for the respondent - State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.06.1988 passed by passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Lucknow - Annexure - 4 and order dated 03.11.1988 passed by Additional Commissioner - Annexure -11 and order dated 17.10.1995 passed by Board of Revenue - respondent No.1 annexure 12 to the writ petition.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is bhumidhar of land in question and his name was recorded along with other co-sharers. Village Miranpur Pinwat, where the land in question lies, was notified under Section 4 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act and consolidation operations were taken in the 3 village in 1372 F. and after the consolidation operations, the name of petitioner along with other co-sharers continues in the records.

4. During consolidation operations, no objection was filed by any party questioning or challenging the rights of the petitioner or his co-sharers. The recorded co-sharers deposited ten times of the land revenue and became bhumidhar and bhumidhari sanad was granted to them.

5. One of the co-sharers Chhotey Lal having 1/3rd share, transferred his share to the petitioner through registered sale deed dated 10.01.1974 and the mutation was effected in the khetauni in pursuance of the sale deed by vide order of Tehsildar dated

23.09.1977.

6. The petitioner filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and also impleaded the Gaon Sabha, which was decreed and the decree was prepared on 03.04.1980. The petitioner, according to partition decree, became exclusive bhumidhar of plot No.1 minjumla area 2 bighas and 13 minjumla area 4 bighas 8 biswas and 12 biswansi.

7. The petitioner with the aid of Director of Industries got constructed his factory run in the name and style Mahabir Industries for manufacturing utensils of stainless steels and aluminum which is under production since 1975 over the plot in question. The factory of the petitioner has been constructed and all machineries installations have been fixed long before 1975 after considerable investment from the sources available with the petitioner and the petitioner also has his partnership firm and took loan from the bank and factories department and the land is pledged with the Bank of Baroda, Aminabad. 4

8. The factory of the petitioner is registered under Rural Industries Project run within rural areas and the petitioner is also availing the benefits of rural small scale industries registered by Director of Factories. The said industry is also surrounded by boundary walls all around with ground plinth of 3 feet and was 6 feet in height.

9. The Sub Divisional Officer, Lucknow passed an order expunging the name of the petitioner from the khatauni which was incorporated in the khatauni.

10. The petitioner has transferred some portion of the property in dispute to Vijyant Jaiswal, Rishi Jaiswal, Prateek Jaiswal and Anju Jaiswal and has removed the machinery etc from the land in question.

11. The petitioner filed a suit for partition under Section 176 of UPZA & LR Act in the court of Sub Divisional Officer, Lucknow. The said suit was decreed by judgment and order dated

10.01.1977. The petitioner also applied for preparation of final decree. The petitioner applied twice for obtaining copy of the said order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated 24.06.1988, however, the petitioner was not provided the copy and on enquiry from the clerk concerned, it was disclosed that there was no such file and there was no such order in existence.

12. Petitioner's name was found recorded in C.H. Form No.45 prepared by the consolidation officer. When the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer became known to the petitioner, he filed revision before the Commissioner, Lucknow who also did not direct retrial of the matter on merit in accordance with law. The Additional Commissioner observed that the matter being administrative order, as such the revision was not maintainable. 5

13. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner took the matter in revision before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue by order dated 17.10.1995 dismissed the revision. Hence, the present writ petition has been preferred before this Court.

14. Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that respondent Nos.1 & 2 have committed manifest error of law in not deciding the revision on merit as large number of documents were placed on record which fully supported the case of the petitioner to the effect that petitioner's name is coming down for the past 30 years and the petitioner is bhumidhar and in possession but in dismissing the same on incorrect grounds to the effect that the order passed by respondent No.3 being administrative order.

15. He further submitted that no opportunity of hearing has been afforded to the petitioner by the respondent No.1 and without issuing show cause notice to him, respondent No.1 cannot expunge name of the petitioner from khatauni without registering a case for correction of records under Sections 33 & 39 of Land Revenue Act.

16. He submitted that the alleged reports submitted by officials of revenue department has not been proved and no opportunity of hearing in this regard has been afforded to the petitioner to cross examine the officials. In support of his submissions, he relied upon a judgment in the case of Chaturgun and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.; CMWP No.14 of 2005 decided on 05.01.2005.

17. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent - State submitted that there is 6 illegality in the impugned orders and the same are just and valid. The writ petition being misconceived is liable to be dismissed.

18. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

19. To resolve the controversy involved in the matter, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment relied upon by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner are being quoted below: Chaturgun and Ors. (Supra): "1. Entry of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records has been set aside after. 30 years without hearing the petitioner. Additional Deputy Collector and Tehsildar, Deoria gave ex parte report dated 7.10.2004 to the effect that case No. 1489 decided on 6.8.1975 was farzy hence entries in C.H. Form 45 on the, basis of said order were recommended to be cancelled. A.D.M (Finance and Revenue), Deoria on 20.10.2004 in case number letter No. 1/RRK-2004 approved the ex parte report dated 7.10.2004 on the basis of legal opinion given by D.G.C. (Revenue), Deoria dated 14.10.2004, in the said order, which is challenged in this writ petition it is mentioned that there are authorities of High Court, Supreme Court and Board of Revenue to the effect that farzy entry can be cancelled without hearing anyone. In several cases such types of orders are being passed. Whether the entries are farzy or not can be decided only after hearing the person in whose name entry is continuing. The Court completely fails to understand that what harm would have been caused if before passing the impugned order petitioner had been heard. Entry was continuing for 30 years. Revenue authorities/courts often forget the first principle of natural justice that no adverse order can be passed against a person without providing opportunity of hearing to him (audi alteram partem).

7. 7. In the following authorities the Supreme Court has held that even before passing administrative orders affecting rights of parties opportunity of hearing shall be granted : (1) Ashok V. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2298 (It was a case of ban of particular insecticides). (2) Sahi Ram v. Awtar Singh, AIR 1999 SC 2169 (It was a case of mining lease). (3) G. Pharmaceuticals v. State of U. P., AIR 2001 SC 3707 (It was a case of black listing of contractor). 7 (4) H.A. Shakoor v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 2423 (It was a case of reduction of category of a contractor). (5) Director General of Police Vs. M. Sarkar AIR 1997 SC 249 (In this case constables were discharged from service on the ground that they produces a fake list from Employment Exchange without providing opportunity of hearing. Supreme Court approved the order of High Court setting aside discharge order on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing). (6) All India S.C. and S.T. Employees Association Vs. A.A. Jeen, AIR 2001 SC 1851 (In this case hundreds of employees were affected hence Supreme Court held that they might be served in representative capacity). (7) Godawat Pan Masala Products V. Union of India, 2004 (3) SCCD 1281 : AIR 2004 SC 4057 (In this case it was held that notification prohibiting manufacture and sale etc. of pan masala and gutka was bad in law as it had been issued without providing opportunity to the manufactures of meeting the facts relied upon in the notification in respect of injurious effects of pan masala and gutka). (8) Canara Bank V. Debasis Das, 2003 (3) AWC 1853 (SC) : 2003 (2) SCCD 824 : AIR 2003 SC 2041 (In this authority several principles of natural justice expressed in Latin words have been discussed in detail giving their history (since 1215), scope and applicability. Regarding first principle of natural justice that no person shall be punished unheard (audi alteram partem) it has been held that if appellate authority (it was a case of punishment of an employee) grants post decisional hearing then it may be sufficient compliance of requirement of hearing. In this regard reference has been made to C.L. Sahu V. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480. (Concept of useless formality theory has also been adverted to in para 22 but no final opinion in that regard has been expressed).

8. Accordingly, it is held that whenever an entry in the revenue record is to be cancelled and substituted particularly when the entry is continuing for more than a year, notice must be given to the party in whose favour entry stands even if prima facie, authority/court concerned (i.e. Deputy Collector/Sub Divisional Officer in most of the cases) is of the opinion that the entry is result of fake order or fraud. Similarly if name of an asami pattedar is to be expunged from the revenue records on the ground of expiry of period of patta or any other ground, notice must be given to him before expunging his name. In a recent authority in Hari Ram V. Collector, 2004 (2) RD 360, it has been held by this Court that apart from suit for ejectment under Section 202 of U. P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, asami pattedar may be evicted after expunging his name from the revenue records under 8 Section 34 of U. P. Z.A. and L.R. Act but it can be done only after providing opportunity of hearing to the pattedar/lessee. However if entry is expunged or any other order is passed without hearing the person affected then he is entitled to file an application for post decisional hearing and recall of the order before the Court/ authority which passed the ex parte order. If such an application is filed then the Court/authority concerned shall hear the applicant and in case it comes to the conclusion that the earlier order is not correct then the said order shall be set aside. In such situation it is not necessary to first set aside the order and then hear the party concerned, Alongwith such application such evidence must be filed which the party considers necessary for his case. It has been held by the Supreme Court in A.M.U., Aligarh v. M.A. Khan, 2000 (4) AWC 2993 (SC) ; AIR 2000 SC 2783, that a person who complains about denial of opportunity of hearing must show that in case opportunity had been provided to him, what cause he would have shown or what defence he would have taken. (Similar view has been taken in S.L. Gupta v. A.D. Gupta, 2003 AIR SCW 7089 (para 29) and Canara Bank (supra)]. Against ex parte orders of expunging of names it is not proper to file revision and appeal etc. directly. However, if revision, appeal etc. is directly filed then revisional court/appellate court may also instead of deciding the revision or appeal on merit may grant leave to the affected party to apply for post decisional hearing and recall of order before the trial court/authority. The revisional/appellate authority may also decide the matter on merit after providing opportunity of post decisional hearing (i.e. opportunity to show that earlier entry was not fake) as mentioned in the judgment of Supreme Court in Canara Bank (supra)."

20. In deciding the case respondent Nos.1 & 2 have committed manifest error of law in not deciding the revision on merit as large number of documents were placed on record which fully supported the case of the petitioner to the effect that petitioner's name is coming down for the past 30 years and the petitioner is bhumidhar and in possession but in dismissing the same on incorrect grounds to the effect that the order passed by respondent No.3 being administrative order in nature cannot be justified in law, therefore, the impugned orders are illegal and devoid of merit.

21. The order impugned has been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by the respondent No.1 and without issuing show cause notice to him. Respondent No.1 9 cannot expunge name of the petitioner from khatauni without registering a case for correction of records under Sections 33 & 39 of Land Revenue Act.

22. The report submitted by the officials of revenue department has not been proved and no opportunity of hearing in this regard has been afforded to the petitioner to cross examine the officials. The entry of the name of petitioner in the revenue record has been decided after 30 years without hearing the petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the basis of exparte report to the effect that case by making entries in C.H. Form No.45 on the basis of said order were recommended to be cancelled.

23. It is mentioned that there are authorities of High Court, Supreme Court and Board of Revenue to the effect that farzy entry can be cancelled without hearing anyone. In several cases such types of orders are being passed. Whether the entries are farzy or not can be decided only after hearing the person in whose name entry is continuing. The Court completely fails to understand that what harm would have been caused if before passing the impugned order petitioner had been heard. Entry was continuing for 30 years. Revenue authorities/courts often forget the first principle of natural justice that no adverse order can be passed against a person without providing opportunity of hearing to him (audi alteram partem).

24. A ground in regard to non providing opportunity of hearing and non compliance of principles of natural justice has been taken in paragraph 4 of the grounds taken in the writ petition, reply to which has been given in paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit, wherein there is no specific denial of the ground taken in paragraph 4, thus, it is admitted that no opportunity of hearing 10 was afforded to the petitioner prior to passing of impugned orders.

25. Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the doctrine of principles of natural justice in the case reported in paragraph 19 of the judgment. The fact remains that without giving opportunity of hearing the order has been passed, therefore, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside.

26. In view of reasons recorded above, the orders impugned dated 24.06.1988 passed by passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Lucknow - Annexure - 4 and order dated 03.11.1988 passed by Additional Commissioner - Annexure -11 and order dated

17.10.1995 passed by Board of Revenue - respondent No.1 annexure 12 to the writ petition are hereby quashed.

27. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

28. The matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 to decide the matter again after affording fullest opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 Adarsh K Singh ADARSH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench