JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Abhishek Bhushan, Counsel for petitioners and Mr. Mangla Prasad Rai, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Rai for respondent nos. 4 to 6 and Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Respondent nos. 7 to 18 are stated to be proforma respondents, as such, notice to respondent nos. 7 to 18 are dispensed with.

2. The writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties without inviting counter-affidavit.

3. Brief facts of the case is that respondent no.4 filed an application dated 29.8.2014 under Section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act impleading State of U.P. as opposite party with the prayer to expunge the name of petitioners from Arazi No. 1052 area 0.134 hectare situated at Village-Akhari, Pargana-Kaswar Raja, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Varanasi. The aforesaid application filed by respondent no.4 was registered as case No. 9582 of 2016, Computerized case No. T20161470019582 under Section 31/32 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before respondent no.3/ Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Varanasi. A report was submitted on 20.6.2015 by Lekhpal and a report was submitted on 26.6.2015 by Revenue Inspector as well as Naib Tehsildar and Tehsildar have also submitted their report on 18.3.2016/ 10.2.2018 in the aforementioned proceedings. Respondent no.3 heard the aforementioned case and vide his order dated 17.2.2018 expunged the petitioners' entry. Petitioners applied for restoration on 29.8.2018 which was rejected as not maintainable vide order dated 9.3.2021. Petitioners filed an appeal No. 00683 of 2021, Computerized case No. C202114000000683 under Section 38 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 against the order dated 9.3.2021, the aforementioned appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed as not maintainable by respondent no.2/ Additional Commissioner vide order dated 13.4.2023 hence this writ petition on behalf of petitioners challenging the orders dated 17.2.2018, 9.3.2021 passed by respondent no.3 and 13.4.2023 passed by respondent no.2.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that long-standing entry of the petitioners have been expunged in the summary proceeding under Section 31/32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He further submitted that in the summary proceeding, the long-standing entry cannot be expunged. He further submitted that petitioners' ancestors were recorded over the plot in dispute since 27.10. 1952 on the basis of registered sale deed. He further submitted that during consolidation operation, petitioners' right was also recognized. He further submitted that petitioners were even not impleaded in the proceeding, as such, there was no question of any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. He placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court reported in Chaturgan vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2005 (98) RD 244 in order to demonstrate that opportunity of hearing must be afforded to the recorded tenure holder before expunging the entry by the authority.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Mangla Prasad Rai, learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that notice was issued to the petitioners by the authorities and the order has been passed in accordance with law. He further submitted that jurisdiction has rightly been exercised under Section 31/32 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, no interference is required against the impugned order. He further submitted that order passed by Additional Commissioner under Section 38 (4) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is revisable under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, as such, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

6. Mr. Abhishek Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents submitted that order is revisable as provided under Section 38 (4) of the U.P. Revenue Code,