Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri M.K. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vatsal Srivastava, for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It is contended by learned Counsel for petitioner that mutation was allowed by Tehsildar concerned in favour of petitioner in 1997 itself. Thereafter in 2004 an application was filed by Gram Sabha for recall of order of mutation passed in favour of petitioner and thereupon the Tehsildar after for almost eight years and more, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, recalled the order of mutation dated 26.9.1997 vide order dated 3.4.2006 and directed for correction in the entry and, thereafter issued notice to the affected parties.

3. Sri Gupta contended that opportunity of hearing ought to have been allowed to petitioner before recalling order of mutation dated 26.9.1997 and, therefore, impugned order is illegal being in violation of principles of natural justice. The revisional authority has also erred in law in observing that in case of fraud or mis-representation, no opportunity is required to be given to affected parties. He submitted, if the order has been obtained by fraud or mis-representation, it was incumbent upon by the person concerned, who alleges fraud or mis-representation, to prove the same and it could not have been done ex parte without hearing the other side. He placed reliance on this Court’s decision in Chaturgun and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (98) RD 244, Smt. Kunti and others v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut and others, 2009(5) ADJ 728; Bachchu Ram Sing v. Addl. Commissioner (J) Allahabad Division, Allahabad, 2009(6) ADJ 183; Sanskrit Gram Nirman Sahkari Samiti v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(9) ADJ 148; Riz Pal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(9) ADJ 411; Civil Miss. Writ Petition No. 38874 of 2010 (Shri Durgadevi Rural and Educational Society v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 7.7.2010, and, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13757 of 2011 (Dal Chand and others v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 8.3.2011.

4. Sri Gupta further contended that the impugned order was passed by Tehsildar since Gram Sabha has raised an objection that the land in question was donated pursuant to the Bhoodan Yagna, a movement initiated by Acharya Vinoba Bhave, by voluntary gift with a view to distribute to the landless persons and, therefore, could not have been transferred under the provisions of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1952”). Ignoring the provisions of the said Act, it was first recorded as ‘transferable’ and thereafter has been sold. He contended that Tehsildar ignored the fact that even if the land in question was governed by Act 1952, Section 14 (1) provides, when the grant of land is given to landless persons, it shall vest in the grantee with rights and liabilities of a Bhumidhar with non transferable rights. Subsequent amendment of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1950”) and insertion of Section 131-B providing that after ten years, Bhumidhar with non transferable rights would get transferable right would apply to land governed by Act 1952 and this aspect has been completely ignored by Tehsildar in passing the impugned order.

5. Learned Standing Counsel, having gone through the various authorities on the subject as also the record of the matter, could not dispute that the order impugned in this writ petition was adverse to the interest of petitioner and ought not to have been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, however, seriously opposed the argument of Sri M.K. Gupta with respect to applicability of Section 131-B of Act 1950 and contended that it would not apply to the land in respect whereto a grant has been made to landless persons under Act 1952 even though the grantee enjoyed the land as Bhumidhar with non transferable rights and is so mentione