RAMESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A revision has been filed on 2-11-2002 against the order of SDO dated 6-9-1998 and 8-9-1998. It has been alleged that the impugned order were passed ex-parte without giving an opportunity to the revisionist to present his case.

(2.) A perusals of the documents reveals that the revisionist was an Asami pattedar. Hence, the rights that occrued to him would have been for a limited period of time. However, it is not clear as to what was this duration. Hence, in case the Pattas were cancelled before the completion of tenure, the SDO is directed to give an opportunity to the revisionist to present his cases and thereafter pass a speaking order. However, if the impugned order was passed merely to correct the records, consequent to the expiry of the tenure, the an applicant need not be given an opportunity as all his rights relating to the land would have ceased on the expiry of the tenure.