Ran Vijai Singh, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 16.9.2006 and consequential notice dated 22.9.2006. From the perusal of the order dated 16.9.2006 passed by Sub- Divisional Officer, Jhansi it transpires that the plot No. 1670 is recorded as a pond but the petitioners have got their name entered in the katauni fraudulently. After an enquiry this fact has transpired and a decision was taken for expunging their name from khatauni. While passing this order an opportunity of post decisional hearing was offered to the petitioners. Pursuant thereto a notice was issued to the petitioners on 22nd September, 2006 requiring their presence on 6.10.2006 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhansi to produce the relevant materials in support of their case.
(2.) THE petitioners instead of appearing before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhansi have filed the present writ petition, in which this Court has stayed the operation of the order dated 16.9.2006 and further directed the respondent not to interfere in the possession of the petitioners. I have heard Sri Harish Chandra Mishra learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri V.K. Rai for U.P. Jal Nigam. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 16.9.2006 is an ex parte order as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners, therefore, it deserves to be quashed. In his submissions the petitioners are in possession over the land in dispute for a quite long time and on that basis their names have been recorded in khatauni and they are cultivating the land. Therefore, no order for expunging their name could be passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. From the perusal of the order dated 16.9.2006 it transpires although a decision was taken for expunging of their name but an opportunity of post decisional hearing was offered to the petitioners but instead of filing their reply before Sub-Divisional Officer the petitioners have chosen to challenge the said notice through this writ petition.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the notice dated 16.9.2006 it transpires that the notice has been issued under Sections 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act requiring the petitioners to produce the relevant material in support of their case. It is settled law that the proceeding under the U.P. Land Revenue Act are summary in nature and it do not decide any right or title of the parties and the writ petitions are not generally maintainable in such matters. The main thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is the breach of principle of natural justice before passing the impugned order dated 16.9.2006. In his submissions the long standing revenue entries cannot be expunged out rightly without affording an opportunity of hearing. This Court in the writ petition No. 5101 of 1998 decided on 27.8.2008 has taken the view that when the order impugned leads to the civil consequences affecting the right of the other persons then opportunity of hearing is necessary to be given before passing such order, but simultaneously it is also settled law that opportunity of hearing is not a ritual which should be given in each and every case. If in a case even after giving an opportunity of hearing same result is likely to come and the order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing then in that circumstances the order passed should not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.;