- (1.) The petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, by which, ex-parte, it had been held that revenue entries with regard to the petitioners vis-a-vis Plots No. 240 and 461 were fraudulent, had filed an Appeal. The Appellate Court by its order dated 28.08.2018 approved the order dated 24.04.2018. Aggrieved thereof the instant writ petition was filed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners had assailed the two orders and had submitted that by wrongly placing reliance on a Judgement reported in [2009(107) RD 35 (H)] (Jai Prakash and Others Vs. L.M.C.) equivalent to (RLT 2009, 710 (Jai Prakash and others vs. LMC), the State authorities had expunged the entries in favour of the petitioners and had entered the Gaon Sabha as its owner.
(3.) Learned counsel submitted that by simply stating that entries were fraudulent the petitioners could not be deprived of their rights of being heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, if any order is passed, it can be so done only after considering the objections filed and on the basis of evidence produced. He further submits that had an opportunity of hearing been given and had the petitioners been allowed to file their objections alongwith their evidence with regard to ownership over Plot No.515 (out of which Plot No. 240 was carved out) then they would have established that entries in their favour were not fraudulent.;