S.N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) Since the above two writ petitions raise similar controversy, hence they are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) By the impugned orders dated 31.7.1998, 8.1.1999 and 26.6.2000, passed by District Magistrate, Saharanpur, Settlement Officer Consolidation and Consolidation Officer, respectively, the entry of Asami patta in the revenue record was expunged.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that petitioners were not given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned orders. He further urged that the Asami Patta was executed in favour of petitioners and it was not cancelled by the competent authority so far, and unless Asami Patta is cancelled by the competent authority, the impugned orders cannot be passed. He further urged that in any case since petitioners' right are affected, they are entitled to get opportunity of hearing. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon case law of learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 15880 of 2004 decided on 10.8.2004.;