(1.) HEARD .
(2.) IN the Government revenue records, Register II, the petitioner was recorded as a tenant. The private respondents made an application for change of name of tenant as recorded therein, it is not disputed that on the day when the Circle Officer received the application, he ordered an enquiry and on the same very day issued a public notice and on the same very day without notice to the petitioner deleted the petitioner 'sname and substituted the name of private respondents as tenants. The petitioner on coming to know of this appealed before the D.C.L.R., who having appreciated the aforesaid facts set aside the order of the Anchal Adhikari. Thereafter the private -respondents preferred a revision before the Collector of the district. The Collector of the district referred to a civil court judgment purporting to be in favour of the private -respondents and allowed the revision application, thus restoring the order of Anchal Adhikari passed at the first instance. The present writ application is directed against the order of the Collector of the district.
(3.) ON the other hand, the petitioner submits that the judgment, in question, does not in fact decide the issue in the manner as submitted by Mr. Dwivedi. He further submits that before deleting the name of the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to be noticed and to be heard in the matter. Denial of natural justice is a prejudice in itself which cannot be cured in appeal or other proceedings. For this learned counsel placed reliance on a judgment in the case of S.L. Kapoor V/s. Jagmohan & Ors. since reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 136 as well as in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India V/s. L.K. Ratna & Ors. since reported in AIR 1987 SC 71.