The central legal point established is the requirement to afford a post-order opportunity of hearing to the affected party, as a violation of natural justice renders the order invalid.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel representing respondents No. 1, 2 & 5 and learned counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4.

2. Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer in pursuance of the order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation.

3. Precise case of the petitioner is that Consolidation Officer has passed an ex-parte order dated 27.01.2021 sans opportunity of hearing accorded to the recorded tenure holder (petitioner).

4. It is submitted that against the order dated 18.07.2021 passed by the Consolidation Officer, several appeals were preferred on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. All the appeals were decided by a common ex parte order dated 09.10.2020 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the matter was remitted before the Consolidation Officer to decide the same afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. After remand, Consolidation Officer has passed fresh order dated 27.01.2021 that too sans opportunity of hearing accorded to the petitioner in contravention of the direction as issued by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation in its order dated 09.10.2020. While entertaining the instant writ petition, this Court has passed following order dated 17.01.2023:-

"Grievance of the petitioner is that the order dated 9.10.2022 passed by Settlement Officer of Consolidation and, in pursuance thereof, order dated 27.1.2021 passed by Consolidation Officer are ex-parte orders passed behind the petitioner sans opportunity of hearing.

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to take instructions in the matter and submit a short counter affidavit with regard to opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the Consolidation Officer. Along with short counter affidavit he shall file the order sheet of the appeal decided by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation and the order sheet of the case decided by the Consolidation Officer.

List this matter in top ten cases of the additional cause list dated 6.2.2023.

Till the next date of listing parties are directed to maintain status quo with respect to the nature and possession over the property in question.

On the next date fixed Writ Petition No. 2233 of 2021 shall also be listed along with other connected matters."

5. In pursuance of the order dated 17.01.2023, a short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State apprising the Court that notice was issued to the petitioner, however, same could not be served because the addressee was not found in the village, therefore, notice was pasted on the public place. Endorsement made at the back of the notice is quoted hereinbelow:-

^^Jheku~ th]

,d Áfr lEeu xzke esa tkdj mijksDr xokgksa ls irk pyk fd ckyd jke iq= foJke xzke esa ugha jgrs gSA dgh ckgj jgrs gS rFkk Áfr lEeu xokgksa ds lkeus lkoZtfud LFkku ij pLik fd;k fjiksVZ lsok esa Ásf"kr gSA

g0 viBuh;

02-12-20**

6. Nothing has been demonstrated by learned Standing Counsel that order has been passed after affording effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Even from the impugned order, nothing reflects that petitioner was served notice and heard before passing the order dated 27.01.2021.

7. In the given circumstances, it is apparent that no effective opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Consequently, his right and title is affected owing to violation of natural justice and fair play. He has been deprived of his valuable rights sans adhering to the cannons of natural justice. In the matter of Muzeeb Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Azamgarh reported in AIR 1996 Allahabad 88, coordinate Bench of this Court has held that a post order opportunity of hearing is necessary to the person adversely affected in the cases where an entry is expunged or corrected in t