SITA RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3-Gaon Sabha. The petitioners contend that very same plot was subject-matter of controversy in a proceeding under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act on a previous occasion when the names of the petitioners were directed to be expunged by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 17.8.2006. The petitioners challenged the same in Revision No. 238 of 2007 and the said revision was allowed by the learned Addl. Commissioner on 12.9.2007. A certified copy of the said judgment has been filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

(2.) Sri Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that again the same action has been taken against the petitioners without adverting to the said order and in violation of principles of natural justice by relying upon a mere report of Tehsildar. Learned Counsel submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer has travelled beyond his authority by ignoring the order of the Addl. Commissioner and secondly by proceeding to pass an order without giving notice or opportunity to the petitioner.

(3.) It is settled principle of law that a long standing entry cannot be reversed in summary proceedings under section 33/39 unless a patent error can be established. A question of title cannot be investigated in view of the bar contained in section 40A of the 1901 Act.