LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. ADITI AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEAR Sri Gaurav Mehrotra learned Counsel for the Lucknow Development Authority and Sri Anurag Srivastava learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under section 33/39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. These proceedings commenced on the application dated 21.9.1999 filed by the petitioner regarding plot No. -171 -Ja measuring 3 bigha, 17 biswa. On the application aforesaid, a report was called for by the S.D.M., Sadar, Lucknow. Copy of the report furnished on 7.1.2000 is on the record as Annexure 12 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said document reveals that it has been reported that the name of Tulsiram has been recorded over the land in question in pursuance of the order of the Consolidation Officer, Malihabad but it has been reported that no record of any such case is available in the office of the Consolidation Officer, Malihabad. It has further been reported that there exists a double entry one in favour of Tulsiram and the other in favour of Gaon Sabha wherein the said land is recorded as Navin Parti.

(2.) RELYING on the report submitted by the Naib Tahsildar aforesaid an order was passed directing that the name of Tulsiram and his successor be expunged and the land be recorded as Navin Parti. Against the order passed by the S.D.M., revision was filed which was numbered as Revision No. 48 (LR) 1999 -2000 before the Board of Revenue, on the ground that the order of the S.D.M. was passed without opportunity of hearing.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Board of Revenue has erred in directing the filing of a suit under section 229B. He admits that the order passed against the contesting respondent was an ex -parte order and they were entitled to be heard and on the strength of the admission he submits that under the circumstances the Board of Revenue should have remanded the matter to the S.D.M. for a fresh decision after hearing the parties on merits. In support of his contention he has referred to various documents which have been filed along with writ petition. One of the documents that has been filed, is the Khatauni of 1356 -F.