MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Abhishek Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents 1 to 5 and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

2. Petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned order dated 8.3.2018 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Jaunpur passed on the application dated 28.2.2018 moved by the DGC (Revenue) in pending Revision No.6 and the order dated 19.3.2018 of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) rejecting the application of the petitioner for recall of the order dated 8.3.2018.

3. The petitioner claims to be recorded tenure holder of various plots mentioned at para 3 of the writ petition situate in village Sabarhad, Pargana Anguli, Tehsil Shahganj, District Jaunpur. It appears that some report had been submitted by the Kanungo on 12.7.2001 to the effect that Plot no.1747 Kha area 0.01 decimal which was earmarked for nali on which the petitioner had constructed one pucca room and boundary and recommended action under Rule 115-C of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Rules 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Rules, 1952'). On the basis of said report the Assistant Collector First Class/Tehsildar (Judicial), Shahganj, Jaunpur had issued notice to the petitioner under Rule 115-C of the Rules, 1952. The said notice was immediately responded by the petitioner refuting the allegation and had also taken plea that the said report was ex parte and without any demarcation from any fixed boundary marks. After such objection in the year 2003 respondents at no point of time had taken any action till the year 2017. It appears that in the year 2017 proceedings under Section 122-B of the U. P. Z. A. L. R. Act 1950 read with Rule 115-C of the Rules, 1952 has been initiated against the petitioner. In such proceedings the Revenue Inspector submitted report on 9.11.2017 substantially authenticating the earlier report by holding that the petitioner had included nali, baha, chabutara and chakmarg in question within his boundary wall and in this way encroached the same. It has also been claimed that at no point of time demarcation was done in the matter from any fixed point, hence the Revenue Inspector had prepared the report ex parte without notice to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said report, the petitioner preferred an objection by way of application dated 7.1.2017 requesting that the entire disputed area may be demarcated by the Lekhpal before proceeding further, which was kept by the Tehsildar on record asking the petitioner to present any ruling or law in support of his contention. The Tehsildar (Judicial), Shahganj, Jaunpur vide order dated 18.12.2017 directed for dispossession of the petitioner from the land in question and also imposed penalty of Rs. 172/-. Immediately thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 122-B (4) of the Act being Revision No.7 of 2017 along with the stay application. As per the record this much is admitted fact that the aforesaid revision along with the stay application was considered by the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court had stayed the operation of the ex parte order dated 18.12.2017 passed by the Tehsildar vide order dated 15.1.2018.

4. In this background Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner states that one alleged application was moved by the State through DGC (Revenue) on 28.2.2018 and the Revisional Authority without granting any opportunity in the matter proceeded to vacate the interim order dated 15.1.2018 and also asked the Tehsildar to take appropriate action vide order dated 8.3.2018. As such, it is submitted that the order impugned passed by the Revisional Authority is an ex parte order passed behind the back of the petitioner without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and as such, the same is hit by principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside