- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 1.7.1999 and the order dated 11.11.1998. By the impugned order dated 11.11.1998 the name of the petitioner has been expunged from the Khatauni by the Up Ziladhikari, Banda which order has been affirmed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Banda.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner after Zamindari abolition the demarcation of plots no. 2995 measuring one Bigha, Plot no. 3534 measuring 1 Bigha, 6 Biswa, Plot no. 2442 measuring 12 Biswa, Plot no. 3574 measuring 13 Biswa and Plot no. 3576 measuring 10 Biswa were held to be non agricultural plots. The Zamindar of the said plots had executed a lease for the period 30.10.1995 to 30.10.2079 for rent of Rs.7.50. The claim of the petitioner is that there was a registered Ikrarnama to that effect with the Zamindar and the petitioner- lessee. The contention of the petitioner is that during mutation proceedings the Lekhpal noted the transaction of lease and has endorsed in the Khatauni and recorded the name of the petitioner in the Khatauni vide Khata No. 12 under Ziman and within a period of two years in Non-Z.A. Khatauni for 1405 Fasli. His further contention is that the Commissioner without initiating any proceedings either under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act or under the U.P. Land Revenue Act has straight away directed the S.D.O. Banda to expunge the entry containing the name of the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that by the impugned order dated 11.11.1998 the Up Ziladhikari has expunged the name of the petitioner from the Khatauni.
(3.) AGGRIEVED the petitioner preferred a revision no. 79/98-99 under section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act before the Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham Region, Banda, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 1.7.1999 upholding the order dated 11.11.1998 of the Sub Divisional Officer, Banda. I have heard Shri Ramesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are bad in law inasmuch as the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing. ;