Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. Swami Nath filed an application under section 28 of U.P.L.R. Act on 9.11.1995 against gaon sabha and the petitioner complaining that the area of plot No. 862 was 0.78 acres as shown in the revenue record however in the map it was shown to be less than that. During pendency of the case respondent No. 1 purchased the property from Swami Nath hence she was substituted in the case at the place of Swami Nath. The case was ultimately registered as case No. 194 of 2004 and was allowed by Chief Revenue Officer (C.R.O.) Ballia on 12.1.2005. Against the said order petitioner filed revision No. 37/B of 2005 -06. Commissioner, Azamgarh, Division Azamgarh dismissed the revision on 4.8.2006, hence, this writ petition.
(2.) THE C.R.O. simply approved the report of revenue inspector who had stated that he had inspected/surveyed the plot and given the report on the basis of the same. The main argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that survey was done before issuing notice to the petitioner. In my opinion survey ought to be done after notice to both the parties. From the impugned order it is clear that after survey had been done, notice was issued to the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that in case the Court is of the opinion that survey should be done in the presence of both the parties then said order may be passed and both the parties may be directed to appear before the Court below on a particular date.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside.;