Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel representing respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri M.N. Singh, Advocate representing the respondent no.2.
(2.) The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that long standing entries of the petitioners, which had sustained two intervening consolidation proceedings, have been expunged on the basis of a report by the Tehsil Authorities, by the order of the Deputy Collector dated 21.1.2008 without application of mind by endorsing 'approved as proposed'. It is further submitted that no notice or opportunity has been given to the petitioners before directing for expunging the name of the petitioners from the revenue records.
(3.) From a perusal of the report and the order annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners stands substantiated. Proceedings under Section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are judicial proceedings and require notice and opportunity to the parties concerned. Petitioners are an affected party, inasmuch as their names have been directed to be deleted from the revenue records. The impugned order stands vitiated for lack of notice and opportunity.;