Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vatsal Srivastava, for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It is contended by learned Counsel for petitioner that mutation was allowed by Tehsildar concerned in favour of petitioner in 1997 itself. Thereafter in 2004 an application was filed by Gram Sabha for recall of order of mutation passed in favour of petitioner and thereupon the Tehsildar after for almost eight years and more, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, recalled the order of mutation dated 26.9.1997 vide order dated 3.4.2006 and directed for correction in the entry and, thereafter issued notice to the affected parties.

3. Sri Gupta contended that opportunity of hearing ought to have been allowed to petitioner before recalling order of mutation dated 26.9.1997 and, therefore, impugned order is illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice. The revisional authority has also erred in law in observing that in case of fraud or mis-representation, no opportunity is required to be given to affected parties. He submitted, if the order has been obtained by fraud or mis-repre