The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of natural justice and fair play must be adhered to, and parties must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before their rights are affected.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha/respondent no.7 and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 6.

2. Petitioners have invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21.11.2019 passed by the Consolidation Officer in Case No. 593 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others) and three separate orders dated 26.11.2019 passed in case No. 628 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others), 660 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others) and 630 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others) respectively.

3. Grievance of the petitioners is that the Consolidation Officer has passed the impugned orders without issuing any notice to the recorded tenure holders and without affording them opportunity of hearing.

4. Instant writ petition relates to plots No. 1418/7, 1193, 1574/2 and 1188 which were record in the name of Shyam Lal and others respectively. Against the aforesaid entries, consolidator has submitted separate reports dated 15.11.2019 and 19.11.2019 respectively for expunging the names of recorded tenure holders from the revenue records.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid report submitted by the Consolidator, reports dated 21.11.2019 and 26.11.2019 were prepared by the Assistant Consolidation Officer and he referred the matter to the Consolidation Officer for passing appropriate order to expunge the name of respective recorded tenure holders from plots No. 1418/7, 1193, 1574/2 and 1188, as mentioned above.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid reports dated 21.11.2019 and 26.11.2019, case has been registered under Section 9A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act being case Nos. 593 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others), 628 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others), 660 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others) and 630 (State of U.P. Vs. Shyam Lal and others) respectively. After receiving the aforesaid reports, Consolidation Officer on same date i.e. 21.11.2019 and 26.11.2019 respectively has passed the orders with respect to the plots No. 1418/7, 1193, 1574/2 and 1188 respectively directing to expunge of the name of the recorded tenure holders from the revenue record, which are challenged in the instant writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that reports dated 21.11.2019 & 26.11.2019 submitted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer was entertained on the same day i.e. 21.11.2019 & 26.11.2019 by the Consolidation Officer and without issuing any notice to the recorded tenure holders and without affording them any opportunity of hearing, impugned orders have been passed to expunge their names from the revenue record. It is further submitted that the names are recorded since long in the revenue record and the valuable rights are vested in the recorded tenure holders over the property in question, therefore, the name of the recorded tenure holders cannot be expunged in such a manner, and it can be done only in accordance with law. It is next contended that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is illegal and suffers with infirmities, therefore, same shall be quashed.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the petition on the ground that the land in question is a Gaon Sabha property, which has illegally been got recorded in the name of the recorded tenure holders, therefore, in the matter of fraud, there is no need for giving any opportunity of hearing to the recorded tenure holders.

9. On the pointed query made to the learned Standing Counsel with respect to the opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioners, he is not in a position to deny the fact that opportunity was not afforded to the recorded tenure holders. It is next contended that order passed by the Consolidation Officer is legal and sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, petition may be dismissed in limine.

10. Having considered the rival submissions advanced b