Denial of hearing does not invalidate decisions unless actual prejudice is proven; a party must show substantial harm to sustain claims of natural justice violations.

JUDGMENT :

Jaspreet Singh, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tomar learned counsel for the State respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 28.09.2024 passed by the respondent no.1 whereby the revision of the petitioner was dismissed affirming the order passed by the respondent no.2 dated 19.07.2007, correcting the entries in proceedings under Section 33 /39 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901.

3. The primary submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the property-in-question had been allotted to the petitioner who has been in possession thereof since 1977. It is also urged that the State had initiated proceedings under Section 33 /39 of the Act of 1901 wherein an exparte order dated 19.07.2007 was passed. The respondent no.2 while expunging the entry which was subsisting in favour of the petitioner, has been done so without issuing any notice or even without calling for a reply from the petitioner and in this view of the matter the order is completely without jurisdiction and is against the principles of natural justice.

4. It is further urged that the said order dated 19.07.2007 was assailed by filing a revision and the revisional court also dismissed the same, however, it did not delve into the issue as to whether appropriate hearing was given to the petitioner and in this view of the matter, the order of dismissal of the revision is also against the principles of natural justice and substantial injury would be caused to the petitioner who is under an eminent threat of dispossession at the behest of State Authorities.

5. Sri Tomar learned Standing counsel and Sri Mohan Singh learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha have made submissions that from a perusal of the averments made in the writ petition itself, it would indicate that the petitioner was granted an asami Patta which was in the year, 1977, and the said Patta at best could continue only for a period of five years and not beyond that hence, no right could accrue to the petitioner.

6. It is further urged that even though the petitioner may not have been granted any opportunity of hearing by the Court of first instance but nevertheless, the petitioner was heard by the revisional court and there is nothing on record to indicate that what clinching evidence or averments, documents or plea was taken by the petitioner before the revisional court which they did not or could not take before the Court of first instance. Accordingly, even if the revisional court after considering the case of the petitioner afresh on the basis of submissions made upheld the order dated 19.07.2007, the grounds that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity falls into insignificance as the petitioner raised all objections before the revisional court and in this view, once an opportunity has been granted coupled with the fact that on the own showning of the petitioner, he could not continue to have any right over the property beyond five years from the date of asami Patta, hence, the aforesaid plea of the petitioner that he has been deprived of an opportunity of hearing does not come to his aid and the petition be dismissed.

7. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record.

8. The Court finds that in paragraph-2 and 4, the petitioner has taken a specific ground that they are in possession of the property in question since 1977 in pursuance of asami Patta. This being the admitted position and even though the petitioner may not have been granted opportunity of hearing before the respondent no.2 yet he contested the proceedings before the revisonal court where he raised all the objections w