SANGEETA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla and the learned Standing Counsel. The present writ petition has been filed against an order dated 29.9.2008 by which without any notice to the petitioner, on an intimation given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned dated 25.8.2008, the Consolidation Officer has expunged the entries made in favour of the petitioner treating it to be forged. It appears that the petitioner purchased the said property on the basis of same sale deed after payment of certain consideration in the year 1994. On the basis of the aforesaid sale deed the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue record. In appears that on the basis of some complaint, the authority concerned has directed to expunge the name of the petitioner from the revenue record and directed to lodge an F.I.R. only on the ground that the property purchased by the petitioner was not from the person who was authorised to execute the sale deed. During this period the village in question has been notified under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. Therefore, the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned has directed the Consolidation Officer to pass the appropriate order to this effect. The petitioner states that she was having no knowledge regarding any direction the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer without issuance of any notice or giving any opportunity to the petitioner, has passed the impugned order dated 29.9.2008 expunging the name of the petitioner treating the same as forged. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. From the perusal of the record it clearly appears that no notice and opportunity has been given to the petitioner prior to the said order, therefore, it will be presumed that the order dated 29.9.2008 is an order against the principles of natural justice without affording any opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, in my opinion, inviting counter and rejoinder affidavits will unnecessarily delay the matter to be kept the present writ petition pending before this Court for a considerable period of time. Ultimate result will, after the exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits, be the same. Therefore, with the consent of the parties this writ petition is being disposed of finally giving a liberty to the petitioner to make an application before the Consolidation Officer annexing all the relevant document to show that she is a bona fide purchaser of the property and the name of the petitioner has properly been recorded in the revenue record. If such application is filed within one month with an application for stay, the same may be considered and decided on merit after affording full opportunity to the petitioner and relevant parties by a speaking and reasoned order. Till the decision of the said application filed by the petitioner, order dated 29.9.2008 passed by Consolidation Officer, respondent no. 3 shall be kept in abeyance. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of. No order is passed as to costs.