The central legal point established in the judgment is the fundamental principle of natural justice that no adverse order should be passed against a person without providing an opportunity of hearing, especially in matters affecting individual rights.

( 1 ) ENTRY of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records has been set aside after. 30 years without hearing the petitioner. Additional Deputy Collector and Tehsildar, Deoria gave ex parte report dated 7. 10. 2004 to the effect that case No. 1489 decided on 6. 8. 1975 was farzy hence entries in C. H. Form 45 on the, basis of said order were recommended to be cancelled. A. D. M (Finance and Revenue), Deoria on 20. 10. 2004 in case number letter No. 1/rrk-2004 approved the ex parte report dated 7. 10. 2004 on the basis of legal opinion given by D. G. C. (Revenue), deoria dated 14. 10. 2004, in the said order, which is challenged in this writ petition it is mentioned that there are authorities of High Court, Supreme Court and Board of Revenue to the effect that farzy entry can be cancelled without hearing anyone. In several cases such types of orders are being passed. Whether the entries are farzy or not can be decided only after hearing the person in whose name entry is continuing. The Court completely fails to understand that what harm would have been caused if before passing the impugned order petitioner had been heard. Entry was continuing for 30 years. Revenue authorities/courts often forget the first principle of natural justice that no adverse order can be passed against a person without providing opportunity of hearing to him (audi alteram partem ).

( 2 ) AS impugned order has been passed without hearing the petitioners, hence the matter has to be decided again by the authority concerned. In view of this I do not consider it necessary to call for counter affidavit.

( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned standing counsel representing all the respondents.

( 4 ) IN several revenue matters Deputy Collectors/sub-Divisional Officers and other revenue authorities and courts are passing orders particularly of removal of names from revenue records without hearing the parties which are effected by the said orders placing reliance upon the authority of the Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani, AIR 1991 SC 909. It is the first principle of natural Justice that no adverse orders shall be passed against a person without hearing him even in administrative matters which affect the rights of persons. Grant of opportunity of hearing in administrative matters is comparatively a recent doctrine. As far as judicial matters are concerned since the time when courts were established it has been the most essential ingredient of procedural law that no order shall be passed without hearing parties concerned. Removal and substitution of entry in revenue records under Section 34 of Land Revenue Act or any other provision is a judicial matter making it all the more necessary to provide opportunity of hearing to the party concerned. The aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court is a rare exception to the Rule. In the said authority the facts were that innumerable medical students on the basis of a fake order of this High Court had obtained admission in higher classes. The Supreme Court enquired the matter from Registrar of this Court. The Registrar sent the original file to the Supreme Court with the report that in the said case no such order was passed. As innumerable persons had obtained benefit under an order which was not in existence and as the original file with the report of Registrar of this High Court was available before the Supreme Court hence the Supreme Court held that in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it was not necessary to hear those innumerable students who had obtained admission in different medical colleges of Uttar Pradesh on the basis of the said order. There is one more point of distinction in the aforesaid authority of the Supreme Court. The fake order of the High Court Stated that the order was being passed on the basis of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had later on modified the