BUNIYAD HUSAINS Vs. ZILA ADHIKARI BARABANKI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel and also perused the record.

(2.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.4.94, whereby respondent No. 1 has directed the land in dispute to be recorded as enemy property in the revenue papers.

(3.) According to the case set out in the writ petition, land in dispute is ancestral property of the petitioners. It was so recorded in the revenue papers since 1932. During consolidation proceedings also, the name of the petitioners were recorded over the land in dispute as tenureholders. No objection, whatsoever, was raised by any body. It is stated that the order dated 27.4.1994, was passed by respondent No. 1 without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. As soon as petitioners came to know about the aforesaid order, they approached this Court and filed present petition.