RAM MURTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -By means of present petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur dated 15.2.2008 by which the revision was filed by the petitioner against the order of the Collector, Kannauj dated 6.5.2000 has been confirmed. By the order dated 6.5.2000, the name of the petitioner from the revenue record has been expunged in respect of the land in dispute.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has purchased the land in dispute on 27.6.1966 from Zamindar Sri Ganga Vijai Bahadur against the registered sale deed dated 27.6.1966. The copy of the sale deed is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, and on the basis of the sale deed, the name of the petitioner has been recorded in the revenue record. He submitted that without giving any notice or any opportunity of hearing of any manner whatsoever the name of the petitioner from the revenue record has been expunged which was recorded in the year 1966. He submitted that the Collector, Kannauj has arrived to an erroneous conclusion that the entry in the revenue record is forged and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the opportunity of hearing. The view of the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur in the revision is also illegal that no opportunity is required to be given where the entry in the revenue record is found to be forged. He submitted that this Court in the case of Chaturgun and others v. State of U. P. and others, 2005 (1) CRC 422 : 2005 (2) AWC 1256 on a consideration of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Judicial Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani, AIR 1991 SC 909 and the various other Supreme Court judgments held that before expunging the name of the person from the revenue record whose name is found recorded since last several years without giving opportunity of hearing, is wholly unjustified.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, in the present case, the name of the petitioner was found entered in the revenue record since 1966, the petitioner claims to have purchased the land in dispute from one Sri Ganga Vijai Bahadur, against the registered sale deed dated 27.6.1966 and, therefore, before expunging the name of the petitioner from the revenue record, opportunity of hearing must be given. It is only the allegation that the entry made in the name of the petitioner in the revenue record is forged. The allegation may be wrong also and is rebuttable. Such allegation can be proved wrong only when the person is provided opportunity. Therefore, the petitioner must be given opportunity to prove his title towards the land in dispute by adducing the necessary evidences and to rebut the allegation that the entry was forged. ADMITTEDLY, in the present case, the petitioner has not been provided opportunity of hearing. Thus, there is a clear violation of principle of natural justice.