IMPORTANT POINT
If entry is expunged or any order is passed without hearing the person affected then he is entitled to file an application for post decisional hearing.

Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 3.6.2003 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Baghpat, in exercise of power conferred by Section 48(3) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (for short the Act) directing to expunge “Amaldaramad" of the names of the petitioners from the land in dispute.

2. The facts as set out in the writ petition are that the Land Management Committee of Village Barnawa District Meerut (now District Baghpat) made allotment of certain land in favour of the petitioners 1st Set and pro-forma respondents No. 7, 8 and 9, in the year 1983. The village was notified for consolidation operation on 27.6.1988. Time barred objections under Section 9 of the Act was filed by the petitioners 1st Set for mutation of their names on the basis of the said allotment. The Consolidation Officer vide order passed on different dates condoned the delay and allowed the objections filed by the petitioners 1st Set. Similarly, objections filed by pro-forma respondent No. 7 were also allowed. In so far as petitioner No. 9 is concerned he had filed objections under Section 9 of the Act on the allegation that he was landless agricultural labour belonging to scheduled caste and was in cultivatory possession over the land in dispute for more than 15 years and hence had acquired rights under Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. This objection was also allowed by the Consolidation Officer. The orders passed by the Consolidation Officer on various objections were duly incorporated in CH Form-11.

3. The petitioners 2nd Set claiming to be purchasers of the land in dispute from petitioners No. 3, 4 and 5 through sale deed dated 24.4.1988 filed objection under Section 12 of the Act for mutation of their names. On the basis of the compromise between the parties the Assistant Consolidation Officer vide orders passed on various dates directed the mutation of the names of the petitioners 2nd Set. The said orders were also given duly effect to in consolidation records. Chaks were accordingly carved out in the names of the petitioners and they were put in possession.

4. On 14.5.2002, respondent No. 6 is alleged to have moved an application before the Collector on Tehsil Diwas alleging that the pattas on the basis of which the petitioners have got their names mutated was forged and fabricated and the petitioners have got their names mutated fraudulently. A report was called for. Tehsildar after making enquiries submitted his report on 4.7.2002 pointing out that the Land Management Committee has never passed any resolution for allotment of any land in favour of the petitioners. Their names have been mutated on the basis of forged patta in connivance with the Consolidation Officer and other subordinate consolidation staff. In the meantime, another application dated 30.5.2003 was filed by respondents No. 4 and 5 to the same effect. The respondent No. 1 again called for a report from the Consolidation Officer who after making enquiries submitted a report dated 31.5.2003 again confirming that the land in dispute was a public utility land and the mutation of the names of the petitioners is a result of fraud and manipulation. Respondent No. 1, on the basis of the aforesaid reports, passed the impugned order dated 3.6.2003 to expunge the names of the petitioners.

5. I have heard Sri Sankatha Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State respondents and Sri S. A. Sah appearing for respondent No. 4.

6. A number of grounds have been urged on behalf of the petitioners to assail the impugned order.

7. The first argument advanced is that enquiry reports which have formed the basis of the impugned order are ex parte and the enquiries were made behind the back of the petitioners without any notice or opportunity. It has further, been urged that even respondent No. 1 also did not provide any opportunity of hearing before passing th