A recorded tenure holder must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before their entry is expunged under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, affirming the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Chandra Kumar Rai, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashwini Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-gram sabha and Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned counsel for the state-respondents.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is being heard & disposed of finally without inviting counter affidavit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the proceeding under Section 33 /39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act has been initiated in respect to the petitioners' entry, i.e plot No- 247 M situated in village Tikari, Pergana- Maghar Paschim, Tehsil-Rushauli, District- Basti on the basis of the report dated 20.10.2013 submitted by lekhpal. The Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 22.11.2013, expunged the petitioners' entry. Against the order dated 22.11.2013, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, petitioners filed a revision before the Board of Revenue being Revision No.518/2013. The Board of Revenue initially entertained the revision and granted interim order for maintaining the status quo vide order dated 19.12.2013. The Board of Revenue, after hearing the parties, dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners vide order dated 11.8.2022, hence, this writ petition for quashing the orders dated 11.8.2022, passed by respondent no.1 and 22.11.2013, passed by respondent no.3 under Section 33 /39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

4. This Court vide order dated 14.12.2013 directed the learned counsel for the gram sabha to obtain instruction in the matter but no instruction has been received. Hence latches of 342 days in filing the instant petition is condoned.

5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were the recorded tenure holder of the plot in dispute on the date of the impugned order, expunging the petitioners' entry was passed by the S.D.O. It is further submitted that the petitioners were recorded on the basis of the lease executed in their favour in the year 1975 which was approved also in accordance with law. He further submitted that the petitioners' lease has not been challenged or cancelled in appropriate proceeding, as such, the petitioners' long standing entry cannot be expunged in the proceeding under Section 33 /39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901. He further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners, while passing the impugned order, expunging the petitioners' entry, as such, the impugned cannot be sustained. He further submitted that specific ground was taken in the grounds of revision that petitioners were granted lease and petitioners were recorded in the revenue records but without notice/opportunity of hearing, petitioners' entry has been expunged. He further submitted basis of the impugned order dated 22.11.2013 is the ex parte report of lekhpal dated 20.10.2013 as such the entire proceeding is vitiated.

6. On the other hand, Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the gaon sabha and Sri Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Addl. C.S.C. submitted that after submission of the report dated 20.10.2013 the impugned order, expunging the entry of the petitioners, has been passed by the S.D.O. which requires no interference. They further submitted that petitioners have not filed the copy of the lease deed before this Court, as such, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the matter. They submitted that no opportunity of hearing is required if the entries are found fraudulent. They also submitted that the writ petition arises out of the summary proceeding, as such, the instant writ petition should not be entertained and the petitioners should initiate proper p