Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Learned Standing Counsel has supplied copies of some orders.

2. The Court is not pleased with the conduct of the matter in question by the respondents. Inspite of repeated warning by this Court that the name of no person shall be deleted from the revenue record particularly if it is continuing for a very long period without hearing him (vide Chaturgun v. State, 2005(I) R.D. 244) still revenue authorities in U.P. are very much fond of scoring off the entries by using the magic word ‘Farzi. Detailed inquiries are said to have been held, in the instant case, however, it was considered to be frivolous to hear the concerned persons. If an authority goes out of the way to deny opportunity of hearing to the person concerned then a doubt may come in the mind of the Court that authority was of the opinion that its case is extremely weak and it will not be able to pass the order which it intends to pass in case the party concerned is heard.

3. On the other hand if the entries in the revenue record are fictitious or forged then not only entry is liable to be corrected and person whose name is recorded is liable to be evicted forthwith vide Hari Ram v. Collector,