Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. I have also perused the original record summoned by me and the same has been returned to the Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
(2.) IN proceedings under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, an order was passed by the Assistant Collector, First Class, Sadar, Kanpur Nagar on 30.5.2006 directing the name of the petitioner be expunged from plot No. 349 area 4 -0 -0 and the same be recorded in the name of the Gaon Sabha. This plot No. 349 is situate in Village Bingavan, Pargana and District Kanpur Nagar. Against the said order a revision being Revision No. 1439 -LR 2005 -06 was preferred by the petitioner. The said revision was allowed by the order dated 12.1.2009 whereby the order dated 30.5.2006 was set aside and the matter was remanded for a decision afresh after affording the parties opportunity of hearing and producing evidence. In pursuance of the remand order, the opposite party No. 2 again passed the same order on 16.1.2013. While passing the said order it has been recorded referring to the various judgment that no opportunity of hearing was required to be provided to the petitioner. It has further been observed that the order of remand passed by the Board of Revenue is not on record. On the strength of these two reasons the case of the petitioner has not been considered. This order was challenged by means of revision No. 936/LR/12 -13 which revision has been dismissed vide order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Board of Revenue.
(3.) THE Board of Revenue has passed the order recording that the entry in favour of the petitioner comes within the category of forged entry and therefore, no opportunity of hearing was required to be provided to the petitioner.;