Long-standing entries cannot be altered without providing notice and an opportunity to be heard, reinforcing the principle of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai,J.

1. Stamp Reporter has reported laches of 2785 days in filing the instant petition which has been sufficiently explained in paragraph Nos. 26 to 32 of the instant writ petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent- Gaon Sabha and Mr. Ashish Chand Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.

4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was allotted patta of the disputed plot situated in Village- Mustafapur-I, Pargana and Tehsil Thakurdwara, District Moradabad in the year 1975 by the Land Management Committee and the patta was approved by the then Sub Divisional Magistrate. On the basis of the patta executed in favour of petitioner, the petitioner was recorded over the plot in question. The Consolidation Officer under Section 9A (2) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 herein after referred as U.P.C.H. Act has expunged the petitioner's entry under the order dated 19.10.2016 hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:-

" (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 19.10.2016 passed by Consolidation Officer (1st), Moradabad.

(ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to interfere peaceful possession of the petitioner over his respective allotted Gata Nos. (description of which is contained in paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition)."

5. The same controversy has already been entertained by this Court in the bunch of writ petition leading Writ B No. 1000 of 2021 and the same were allowed vide judgement dated 18.8.2022 setting aside the order dated 19.10.2016 and remitting the matter back before the Consolidation Officer to decide the proceeding under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner of the writ petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is recorded tenure holder of the plot in question on the basis of patta executed in his favour, as such, without notice and opportunity of hearing, the petitioner's longstanding entry cannot be expunged by the Consolidation Officer. He further submitted that title objection under Section 9A (2) of U.P.C.H. Act should be decided according to the provisions contained under the U.P.C.H. Act and the Rules framed thereunder but without framing any issues and without notice as well as opportunity of hearing to the tenure holder, the entry of the plot has been expunged, as such, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submitted that petitioner is also entitled to the relief claimed in the instant writ petition in view of the earlier decision of this Court passed in Writ B No. 1000 of 2021.

7. On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Chand Nishad, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents as well as Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for resondent- Gaon Sabha submitted that the order impugned has been passed by the Consolidation Officer, as such, writ petition is not maintainable. They further submitted that writ petition has been filed after about eight years, as such, the same cannot be entertained. They submitted that land in dispute is a public utility land, as such, there is no illegality in the order of the Consolidation Officer.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

9. There is no dispute about the fact that Consolidation Officer has expunged the petitioner's entry in respect to the plot in question under the impugned order. There is also no dispute about the fact that similar controversy has already been adjudicated by this Court holding that longstanding entry cannot be expunged without notice and opport