SHANTI DEVI Vs. D.D.C. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioners filed applications under Section 33/39 of the Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 praying for correction of revenue records alleging that as a consequence of different orders passed by the Consolidation Officer under Section 9-A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereafter referred to as, 'Act, 1953'), entries in favour of the petitioners were made in CH Form-45 but after the consolidation operations were over, the concerned Lekhpal wrongly recorded the disputed plots in the name of Gaon Sabha in the khatauni prepared after the consolidation operations were over. It appears from the records that the claim of the petitioners was that in the basic year, the disputed plots were recorded in the name of Gaon Sabha but by the order of the Consolidation Officer referred above, the petitioners were directed to be recorded as Sirdar of the disputed plots. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Lalganj, District Azamgarh vide his order dated 25.1.1991 rejected the applications filed by the petitioners after recording a finding that the entries in CH Form-45 allegedly in favour of the petitioners were forged entries and the petitioners cannot claim any right on the basis of the said entries. In his order dated 25.1.1991, the Sub-Divisional Officer also took notice of the fact that the entries in CH Form-45 in favour of the petitioners were made after the consolidation operations were over. It appears from the order dated 25.1.1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer that before the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioners had filed the photo copies of the certified copies of the alleged orders passed by the Consolidation officer under Section 9-A(2) of the Act, 1953 and the photo copies showed that the certified copies had been issued on 22.4.1985. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a review application before the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer vide his order dated 27.7.1991 recalled his previous order dated 25.1.1991 and directed that the revenue records be corrected as prayed by the petitioners. The order dated 27.7.1991 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground that the concerned employee posted in the record room had informed the Sub-Divisional Officer that similar entries had also been made in favour of other persons after the consolidation operations in the village were over. On the basis of the aforesaid information given by the concerned employee, the Sub-Divisional Officer recalled his previous order dated 25.1.1991 and directed that the revenue entries be corrected as prayed by the petitioners. The order dated 27.7.1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was challenged by respondent no. 3 before respondent no. 1 through Revision No. 174. The respondent no. 1 vide his order dated 14.9.1995 allowed Revision No. 174 and set-aside the order dated 27.7.1991 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The order dated 14.9.1995 passed by respondent no. 1 has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioners that admittedly the order dated 14.9.1995 has been passed by respondent no. 1 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and is, therefore, violative of the principles of natural justice and is, thus, liable to be set-aside. It was further argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the findings recorded by respondent no. 1 in his order dated 14.9.1995 that the entries in favour of the petitioners in CH Form-45 were forged entries is without any evidence and has been made without considering the relevant materials available on record. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 14.9.1995 passed by respondent no. 1 in Revision No. 174 was liable to be quashed.