The absence of a hearing does not invalidate administrative orders if compelling evidence supports the decision, emphasizing that not all violations of natural justice lead to nullification.

JUDGMENT :

Saurabh Lavania, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State counsel and Sri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha concerned.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following main reliefs:-

"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.09.2023 passed by Additional Commissioner IIIrd Devipatan Division Gonda i.e. opposite party no.1, in revision/case no. 00025/2014 Computerize case no. C201408000000025 (Govardhan Singh vs Gram Sabha) under section 219 of Land Revenue Act 1901, as contained in Annexure no.1. to this petition.

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing the impugned order dated 23.06.2011 passed by Sub Divisional Officer Tahsil Mahasi District Bahraich i.e. opposite party no.2 in case no. 22 (Govardhan Singh vs Gram Sabha and others) under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act 1901 as contain in Annexure no.2 to this petition."

3. At the very outset, learned State counsel says that the issues involved in this petition has already been dealt with by this Court in the judgment dated 06.02.2024 passed in a bunch of petitions leading of which is Writ-C No. 1119 of 2024 (Sanwali vs. State of U.P. and others). The relevant portion of judgment dated 06.02.2024 is extracted hereinunder:-

"(1) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Arvind Kumar Shukla, in Writ-C No.1119 of 2024 and Writ-C No.1057 of 2024 and connected matters which have come up before this Court in an Additional List by the order of the Court dated 05.02.2024.

(2) All these writ petitions relate to the same issue and therefore, this Court had directed them to be connected and to be heard together; all the writ petitions praying for quashing of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner-III, Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda, in writ petitions filed by the writ petitioners challenging the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mahsi, District Bahraich, on 23.06.2011 under Section 33/39 of Land Revenue Act, 1901.

(3) The principal facts of the case as argued by the counsel for the petitioners is that the Authorities had allotted Patta of land of Khata No.221, Gata No.2/8/25 situated at Village Pure Prasad Singh, Pargana Fakharpur, Tehsil Mahsi, District Bahraich, in 1995 and then names of the petitioners were recorded in the Revenue Records accordingly as Bhumidhars with non-transferable rights on the basis of said Patta. On 07.12.2010 a complaint was submitted at Tehsil Diwas regarding allotment of Gata No.2/8 having been wrongly done as it was recorded in the Category 6 (4) which is Balu Reta. Considering the complaint the Tehsildar has passed an order on 07.12.2010 itself seeking a report indicating whether the possession of the petitioners over the land allotted to them is illegal and whether it needed to be removed immediately and also to inquire in the Entries in the Revenue Records were forged and if the same were forged they should be cancelled.

(4) In pursuance of such direction of the Tehsildar, the Revenue Inspector conducted an inquiry and submitted his report indicating that the land of Gata No.2/8 was proposed for allotment wrongly. However, such proposal was rejected as the land of Gata No.2/8 fell in the Category of 6 (4) which is Balu Reta. Inadvertently, the land of Gata No.2/8 was recorded alongwith the other Gata numbers. Such report dated 04.05.2011 has been filed as Annexure No.4 to the petition. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahsi, Bahraich, passed the order impugned on 23.06.2011 directing the deletion of names of the petitioners from the Revenue Records and the name of the Gaon Sabha and entry in the name of Gaon Sabha to be recorded without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by a non-speaking order.

(5) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Revisions which Revisions have been rejected by the Additional Commis