SHARDADEEN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against orders dated 15.3.2004 and 10.12.2004. First order has been passed by Deputy Collector, Handia, district Allahabad in Case No. 107 under Section 33/39 Land Revenue Act Durvijay Singh v. Shardadeen.

(2.) The said case was initiated on the application of village Pradhan to the effect that certain Gaon Sabha plots were wrongly entered in the name of petitioner in the revenue records and with the prayer that the said plots must be re-entered in the name of Gaon Sabha after expunging the name of petitioner. The Deputy Collector held that on perusal of records it was clear that without there being any order to that effect, Lekhpal illegally recorded the name of petitioner in khatauni. It is also mentioned therein that inquiry was got conducted by Lekhpal and Naib Tahsildar who reported that in C. H. Form No. 45 (prepared at the conclusion of consolidation operation) some plots in dispute were recorded as usar some as Navin Parti and plot No. 511 as pond. In the said order it is also mentioned that as entries are farzi, hence it is not necessary to hear the petitioner. Through the second order revision filed against the first order has been dismissed by Additional Commissioner (II), Allahabad Division, Allahabad (Revision No. 141/1071/112 of 2003-04).

(3.) Today I have decided Writ Petition No. 14 of 2005, Chaturgun and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors., involving similar point. In the said judgment after discussing several decisions of Supreme Court I have held that even before cancelling allegedly farzi entries in revenue record it is necessary to hear the person in whose name entry is continuing. In the said judgment I have also held that in case revenue entry is cancelled without hearing person concerned then he can apply for post decisional hearing and recall of order.