CHATURGUN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Entry of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records has been set aside after. 30 years without hearing the petitioner. Additional Deputy Collector and Tehsildar, Deoria gave ex parte report dated 7.10.2004 to the effect that case No. 1489 decided on 6.8.1975 was farzy hence entries in C.H. Form 45 on the, basis of said order were recommended to be cancelled. A.D.M (Finance and Revenue), Deoria on 20.10.2004 in case number letter No. 1/RRK-2004 approved the ex parte report dated 7.10.2004 on the basis of legal opinion given by D.G.C. (Revenue), Deoria dated 14.10.2004, in the said order, which is challenged in this writ petition it is mentioned that there are authorities of High Court, Supreme Court and Board of Revenue to the effect that farzy entry can be cancelled without hearing anyone. In several cases such types of orders are being passed. Whether the entries are farzy or not can be decided only after hearing the person in whose name entry is continuing. The Court completely fails to understand that what harm would have been caused if before passing the impugned order petitioner had been heard. Entry was continuing for 30 years. Revenue authorities/courts often forget the first principle of natural justice that no adverse order can be passed against a person without providing opportunity of hearing to him (audi alteram partem).

(2.) As impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioners, hence the matter has to be decided again by the authority concerned. In view of this I do not consider it necessary to call for counter affidavit.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel representing all the respondents.