The court emphasized the necessity of providing a fair opportunity to be heard before passing orders affecting rights, reinforcing principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel.

2. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that inadvertently the typographical error related to particulars of opposite party no. 2, could not be corrected and he may be permitted to correct the same during the course of the day.

3. Learned State Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to correct the opposite party no. 2 in the memo of petition, during the course of the day. In view of the facts of case that opposite party no. 9 is vendor of the petitioner, issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 9 is hereby dispensed with.

5. The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:

“to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.01.2020 passed by opposite party no. 5 in Case No. T201910690114554 (State Vs. Phool Chand) under Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and also the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by opposite party no. 2 in Case No. C202010000000372 (M/s Mohammad Taiyab Quraishi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 respectively.”

6. The dispute relates to Khata No. 707 comprising of Gata Nos. 979-Ka/0.0200 Hec., 980-Ka/0.1000 Hec. 982-Kha/0.1800 Hec. 983/0.2500 Hec. and 985Ga/0.0200 Hec. situated at Village Katra Peepar Khera, Pargana Harha, Tehsil and District Unnao.

7. The land in issue at relevant time was recorded in the name of Phool Chand/opposite party no. 9.

8. The opposite party no. 9 sought permission to sale the land and District Magistrate Unnao, permitted the opposite party no. 9 to sale the land vide letter no. 484/DLRC-Anu dated 23.03.2004. Thereafter the opposite party no. 9 sold the land in issue, detailed above, to the petitioner by way of registered sale deed on 25.03.2004.

9. Thereafter, the petitioner, after seeking permissions including the permission under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (‘Act of 1950’) constructed a Petrol Pump in the year 2006.

10. After the aforesaid, as indicated, on a complaint, a report was called and after receiving report dated 16.09.2019 from opposite party no. 5/Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector I Class, Sadar, Unnao, the opposite party no. 4/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Unnao, vide order dated 26.09.2019, without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, cancelled the order dated 23.03.2004, whereby the opposite party no. 9 was permitted to sale the land in issue, and also the order dated 26.04.2005, whereby one Dashrath was permitted to sale the land as indicated in Khata No. 465.

11. Assailing the order dated 26.09.2019, a Revision No. C202010000000372 (M/s Mohammad Taiyab quraishi and Sons Versus State of U.P. and another) alongwith an application for condonation of delay has been instituted under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before opposite party no. 2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which is pending consideration.

12. From bare perusal of impugned orders it is evident that same are based upon the order dated 26.09.2019 which is in issue, before the revisional authority i.e. opposite party no. 2.

13. In relation to impugned order dated 21.01.2020, learned Counsel for the petitioner says that in fact no notice was served upon the petitioner. In continuation it is stated that a perusal of impugned order indicates that notice was published in daily newspaper namely “Aaj” on 18.01.2020 and without waiting for reasonable period, the opposite party no. 5 in utter arbitrary manner passed the impugned order dated 21.01.2020. The impugned order dated 21.01.2020 was passed within three days after the publication of notice in newspaper. From these facts it is