The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring a fair hearing before making decisions, and highlighted the significance of addressing allegations of fraud in a just manner.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition is filed against the order dated 17- 3-1997 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer Ghaziabad in case No. 24 of 1996-97 under Section 33/39 of U. P. Land Revenue Act, By the said order the learned Sub-Divisional Of ficer had directed for entry in the revenue record recording dispute land as Waqf Property to be deleted.

3. Admittedly, before passing this order learned Sub-Divisional Officer, did not give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, who claims to be Mutwalli of the Waqf. The petitioner has shown cer tain documents, in which he alleges that 13 Biswa out of the total area of the property is recorded as Waqf property since the year 1985. He has also placed before this Court the Gazette notification published in the U. P. Gazette dated 15-2-1992 in which 13 Biswa land was recorded as Waqf property.

4. No doubt the total area which has now become disputed is 2 Bigha 11 Biswas out of which one Bigha six Biswas land is in plot No. 1277 and 1 Bigha 5 Biswa is in Plot No. 1276, which is far in excess of original 13 Biswa. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has attempted to justify this in crease in the area by saying that in pur suance of the circular of Board of Revenue of the year 1989 all Waqf properties were required to be verified on the spot and recorded. In pursuance of the said circular, according to the petitioners Counsel an inspection was done in which entire area of 2 Bigha 11 Biswas was not recorded and, therefore the petitioner moved an applica tion for correction of the entry for includ ing the entire area of 2 Bigha 11 Biswas, which was, according to him found on the spot. Without going into genuineness of these documents and correctness of the entries or th4 complete area found on the spot, it appears that the petitioner has, to say least, an argueable case. Since the mat ter requires investigation into the facts which cannot be done conveniently in writ jurisdiction and since the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and finding or fraud has been recorded against the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order should be quashed and the matter should be sent back, to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghaziabad for decision afresh after hearing the petitioner also. It is made clear that no person other than the petitioner, State, Nagar Nigain, Ghaziabad and the Waqf Board, shall fee entitled to be heard in the matter. The petitioner may

file such docu ments in defence to the alleged wrong entries made on 4-2-1995. The case shall be decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer on day-to-day basis within a period not exceeding one month from the date on which the parties appears before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Waqf Board, Nagar Nigain, Ghaziabad State and the petitioner are all represented before this Court and all of them are directed to put in their appearance personally or through Counsel before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 17th May, 1999. If for some reason 17th May, 1999 is declared as holiday then the parties will put in appearance positively on the next working day. It is made clear that no adjournment will be granted on any ground to any of the parties or their Coun sel. Thesub4 Divisional Officer will record separate finding in respect of 13 Biswas of land alleged to be originally recorded since 1985 and in respect of remaining land which was recorded subsequently.

5. Witt these observation the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner will produce certified copy of this order before the Sub-Divisional Officer on 17th May, 1999 or on the next working day, as the case may be, alongwith the written submissions.

6. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days. Petition allowed.

.