SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri A.N. Tripatahi, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Y.M.S. Yadav, learned standing counsel for respondents.
(2.) THROUGH this writ petition order dated 03.08.2010 passed by Deputy D.M., Patti Pratapgarh in Case No.40 under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, Shatrughan Tiwari and others Vs. Chandrashekhar and order dated 23.09.2013 passed by Additional Commissioner (II), Allahabad Division, Allahabad dismissing the Revision No.32 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.08.2010 have been challenged. Through the impugned orders, it has been directed that name of the petitioner recorded over the land in dispute should be cancelled and the land in dispute should be re -entered as Gaon Sabha land. Land was directed to be entered as naveen parti, jungle, pond, abadi. It was held that forgery had been committed and manipulation had been made in the revenue records. FIR was also lodged against the officials, who had made manipulation in the records. However, the Deputy D.M. committed a blunder by not hearing the petitioner. It is repeatedly directed by this Court that such type of orders shall not be passed without hearing the persons likely to be affected therefrom, however the Deputy Collectors are not paying any heed. In this regard reference may be made to the authority of Chaturgan Vs. State 2005 (98) RD 244 and Dina Nath Vs. State, 2009 (108) RD 321, which has been approved by Supreme Court in Dina Nath Vs. State, 2010 (15) SCC 218 (para -4). In future the court may consider to direct recording of adverse entry against the revenue officers, who pass such type of orders without hearing the persons concerned. However the Supreme Court in A.M.U. Aligarh Vs. M.A. Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 and Ashok Kumar Sonekar Vs. Union of India, 2007 (4) SCC 54 has held that if in a writ petition an order is challenged on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not provided then in the writ petition it must be shown that in case opportunity of hearing had been provided, what plausible cause the petitioner would have shown.
(3.) PETITIONER 's case is that D.D.C. Pratapgarh had passed an order in his favour on 24.03.1972 in Revision No.2138, Chandrashekhar Vs. Gaon Sabha, copy of which is Annexure -4 to the writ petition. In the said order, it is mentioned that earlier the revision had been dismissed on 24.01.1972, however review petition had been filed, which was allowed through order dated 24.03.1972. It is further mentioned in the said order that from the perusal of the record it was clear that the land in dispute was entered in the name of petitioner's father as bag bila lagan bhoomidhari and without any order, the said land was subsequently entered in the name of the Gaon Sabha. Annexure -3 to the writ petition is photostat copy of the revenue records of 1359 Fasli onward. On 26.11.2013, learned standing counsel was directed to produce original records. Accordingly, the records were produced on 28.11.2013 and shown to the learned counsel for petitioner also and photostat copies of relevant records were placed on record of this writ petition after providing one set to the learned counsel for petitioner also as recorded in the order dated 28.11.2013. It was more than apparent even to the naked eye that manipulation by addition of the name of Sataya Narain father of the petitioner had been made in the records. They were clearly in different ink and handwriting.;