JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.4.

2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the impugned order dated 23.03.2021 passed in Revision No.878 (Kisan Junior High School, Pakari, Bhojpur vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) and order dated 20.08.2019 passed by SOC in Appeal No.0182/2019.

3. The controversy in question relates to the Plot No.867, which is recorded in the name of the petitioner-Institution. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20.05.1972, an order was passed by the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Tanda, Faizabad in respect of the Plot No.867 and Plot No.40(M) in terms whereof, the name of the petitioner-Institution was recorded in the revenue records. It is further the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid entries continued to be recorded in the revenue records, however, upon a complaint made by one Shri Baibhav Naresh on 31.07.2019 and an order was passed by the District Magistrate directing the D.G.C. (Revenue), Ambedkar Nagar to file an appeal against the order dated 20.05.1972. It is against the order dated 20.05.1972 that an appeal came to be filed after a lapse of 47 years.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that without opportunity of hearing and without any notice to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 20.08.2019 was passed whereof the entries which have been continuing in the name of the petitioner-Institution have been struck off after holding that the aforesaid revenue entries are forged.

5. It is only when the petitioner became aware of the aforesaid that the petitioner preferred revision before the respondent no.1 and even without considering the case of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 23.03.2021 has been passed.

6. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even assuming that if the entries were fraudulent though not conceded, nevertheless, the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing to put-forward his case. However, without affording an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed which is in violation of principles of natural justice. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 20.08.2019 cannot be sustained.

7. It is also submitted that while a revision was filed before the Deputy Director of Consolidation even the said authority without affording an opportunity to lead evidence to the petitioner has affirmed the order passed by the SOC especially when the order of the SOC clearly indicated that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner and the aforesaid aspect has not been considered appropriately.

8. Learned standing counsel as well as Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 have fairly stated that though the orders which have been passed relate to fraudulent entries but nevertheless insofar as the limited submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned regarding an opportunity of hearing, the same cannot be defended as apparently from the impugned orders itself it has been noted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner while passing the impugned orders.

9. Considering the aforesaid and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is being decided at the admission stage.

10. In light of the submissions and from perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that the order of SOC, Ambedkar Nagar clearly states that even though the appeal has been filed with delay of many years and is also accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the LIMITATION ACT but by relying upon the report of inspection it has assumed that entries were forged and it further states that in such a situation it is not necessary to hear the affected party.

11. This Court finds that where long standing entries are t