RAM ASHEESH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri O.P. Sharma, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is not able to show from the original record that is in his custody, whether any notice was served on the petitioners, it therefore, appears that the stand of the petitioner is correct.

(2.) In the order dtd. 1/3/2023, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was recorded, that proceedings before the Additional Collector were without any notice to the petitioners, and, that only one person was served with notice who filed his reply before the Additional Collector, and, that the Board of Revenue had misdirected itself in observing that notice was served on all the petitioners. This contention could not be disputed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel even after perusal of the original record.

(3.) This writ petition is accordingly allowed. The order dtd. 6/12/2022, passed by the Board of Revenue and the order dtd. 17/8/2016, passed by the Additional Collector, Sant Kabir Nagar are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted before the Additional Collector Sant Kabir Nagar to proceed to decide the matter of the petitioners afresh after serving notices and providing opportunity of hearing to all the petitioners. The petitioners shall cooperate in the proceedings.