- (1.) Heard Sri S.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Sri S.C. Verma alongwith Sri K.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 19.3.2013 passed by learned Member Board of Revenue in Revision No. 848/LR/2012-13 (Smt. Shanti Devi and others v. Rameshwar and others) and order dated 28.12,2012 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Administration, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur in Revision No. 28/65/M-2012 (Ramehswar v. Smt. Shanti Devi and others). Learned counsel for the parties agree that this writ petition may be decided finally without exchange of affidavits. The writ petition is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. The facts giving rise to this case are that it appears the Revision No. 28/65/M-2012-13 was filed against the order dated 19.3.2012 passed by the Tehsildar Nichlaul in Case No. 657/299/2012 (Shanti Devi and another v. Board of Revenue and others) by which the name of Sharda Devi and Shanti Devi was ordered to be recorded in place of Smt. Sudha Devi.
(2.) Aggrieved by this order, the respondent No. 3 has filed revision on 27.12.2012 before the Additional Commissioner Administration Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur which was numbered as Revision No. 28/65/M-2012. The said revision was allowed on the very next date i.e. on 28th December, 2012 by the Additional Commissioner without issuing any notice to the respondents (the petitioners herein). Challenging this order, the petitioners have filed Revision No. 848/LR/2012-13 [Smt. Shanti Devi and others v. Rameshwar and others). The said revision was dismissed after hearing both the parties on the ground that by the order dated 28.12.2012, the matter has only been remanded after setting aside the order dated 19.3.2012 for fresh disposal after hearing both the parties.
(3.) Sri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order dated 28.12.2012 is totally an illegal order as it was passed without issuing any notice and hearing to the respondents (the petitioners herein). In his submissions, it is settled that even an administrative order, which leads to civil consequences, must be passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice and the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. Therefore the learned Member Board of Revenue has erred in dismissing the petitioners' revision.;