(1.) HEARD Sri Shafi Ullah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State -respondents and learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.2.2000 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer expunging the name of late Mangala. The petitioner claims himself to be the son of late Mangala.
(2.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 14.2.2000 is an ex parte order, which was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner's father, whereas, in the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner, a lease was granted in favour of the petitioner's father in the year 1987.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the order impugned has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner," but looking into the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court after a long period of 14 years and keeping in mind the dictum of the Apex Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, : AIR 1978 SC 597 Union of India v. Tulsi Ram Patel, : 1985 (3) SCC 398 I.J. Rao Assistant Collector of Customs v. Bibhuti Bagh, : 1989 (3) SCC 202 Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthi 2005 (6) SCC 321 : 2005 (54) AIC 430 (SC) Muzeeb v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others : 1996 (87) RD 66 and Chaturgun v. State of U.P., : 2005 (98) RD 244 the petitioner is provided post decisional hearing.