- (1.) RAJES Kumar, J. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel ap pears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri V. K. Singh, learned Counsel ap pears on behalf of respondent No. 3.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the allottee of land in dispute. Vide order dated 4. 1. 1996 on the basis of the report of Naib Tehsildar, Tehsildar has recommended to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to remove the name of the petitioner from the record and land may be given to Gaon Sabha. On the aforesaid recommendation, Sub-Divisional Officer (M) on the same day has cancelled the entry treating it as forged. He submitted that by the aforesaid order, the name of the petitioner has been removed from the revenue record without giving opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner filed revision before Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur Nagar, who vide its order dated 14. 3. 1997 referred the matter to the Board of Revenue. Board of Revenue by the impugned order dated 30. 7. 2007 has dis missed the revision. He submitted that the Member, Board of Revenue has not consid ered the claim of the petitioner that the im pugned order has been passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (M) without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and proceeded to decide the matter on merit and in the absence of any documents being furnished, adverse view has been taken against the petitioner, while the petitioner could not get opportunity to adduce the necessary evidences in his favour in the absence of opportunity being offered. Sri V. K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 submitted that it appears that Sub Divi sional Officer (M) has passed the order without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I have perused the order of Sub Divisional Officer (M) dated 4. 1. 1996. It is apparent that the order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Though in the referring order, Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur Nagar has stated that before pass ing the order, opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioner but Member, Board of Revenue has not ad dressed this issue and has decided the matter on merit, namely, on the ground that no evidence has been adduced by the petitioner. If the opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioner, there was no occasion with the petitioner to fur nish the necessary evidence in his favour. Perusal of the impugned order passed by Board of Revenue reveals that it has not addressed that Sub Divisional Officer (M) has passed the order without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
(3.) IN view of the above fact that the Sub Divisional Officer (M) has passed the order without giving opportunity of hear ing to the petitioner and since by the im pugned order, right of the petitioner has been effected, the opportunity of hearing should be provided before passing adverse order against the petitioner. In view of the above, matter is re manded back to the Sub Divisional Officer (M), Bidhuna to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the peti tioner.;