Judgment:
S.U. Khan, J.
1. Learned standing counsel has agreed for final disposal of the writ petition without filing counter-affidavit.
2. In this writ petition on 25.8.2009 following order was passed:
Through five lines order contained in Annexure-1 Consolidation Officer, Anoopsahar district Bulandshahr has cancelled the names of the petitioners which were continuing since 1992 in the khatauni, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The land in dispute is mentioned as Shreni-3 and in possession of asamies. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that several such orders have been passed by C.O., Anoopsahr, district Bulandsahr.
Shri N.P. Pandey, learned standing counsel shall at once seek instructions in this regard. The Court completely fails to understand that why Revenue authorities and Consolidation authorities pass orders cancelling long standing entries without hearing the parties concerned. This is virtually massacre of Justice. When large number of people are involved notice may be served through publication as held by me in Kunti v. Commissioner : 2009 (107) RD 405 : 2009 (3) AWC 2613. Such types of orders are actually against the State for the reason that when such orders are challenged higher court will have no option except to stay operation of the order for the reason that order of expunging long standing entry is passed without assigning any reason and without providing any opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The word farzi is being used by these authorities so frequently that it has lost its meaning. The Court gets an impression that such types of unreasoned orders without providing opportunity of hearing are being passed in-fact to unduly benefit the tenure holders so that they may easily get stay order from the higher Courts. In the instant case Revenue Officers made the entry in the khatauni 1499 to 1404 fasli. In the impugned order dated 29.8.2007 there is no mention that what action has been initiated against the officers/officials who entered the name of the petitioners and before them the name of their predecessor in interest in the revenue records.
There is a mention of some Government order dated 19.6.2006 in the impugned order. The said G.O. must also be shown to the Court.
Put up as fresh on 28.8.2009.
Until 28.8.2009 petitioners shall not be dis-possessed.
Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Shri N.P. Pandey, learned standing counsel by tomorrow.
3. This writ petition is directed against order dated 29.8.2007 passed by C.O. Anoopshahr, district Bulandshahr in Case No. 7/80 of 2008-09, State v. Kanchhid and Ors..
4. Learned Counsel has supplied copy of G.O. dated 19.6.2006 issued by Commissioner and Secretary, Board of Revenue, Lucknow to all D.Ms. On the basis of the said G.O. impugned order is stated to have been passed.
5. In the said G.O. it is mentioned that due to negligence of some revenue employees names of occupants were entered under shreni-3 as asami and shreni-4 as unauthorised occupant and were continuing and the names of their heirs were also mutated after their death. It is further directed therein that such names should be cancelled and land should be entered in the name of the Gaon Sabha.
6. A long standing entry cannot be cancelled without hearing the person in whose name the entry stands. This is what has been laid down in several authorities including the following:
1. Hari Ram v. State 2004 RD 460.
2. Chaturgan v. State : 2005 (98) RD 244 : 2005 (2) AWC 1256.
3. Bachchu Ram Singh v. Additional Comissioner : 2009 (107) RD 552 : 2009 (3) AWC 3017.
4. Smt. Kunti and Ors. v. Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut and Ors. : 2009 (107) RD 405 : 2009 (3) AWC 2613.
7. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file an application before C.O., Anoopshahr for recall of his order dated 29.8.2007 alongwith certified copy of this judgment and such documents on which petitioners want to place reliance. The C.O. must hear the petitioner in detail ignoring the G.O. dated 19.6.2006. If petitioner is able to show that the order dated 29.8.2007 is not correct then same shall be set aside by the C.O., Anoopshahr otherwise it shall be maintained.
8. For a period of one month petitioner shall not be evicted from the land in dispute. In case within one month he files objection as aforesaid then until decision of the objection petitioner shall not be evicted provided that in the objection he does not seek more than one adjournment.
9. It is further directed that notwithstanding aforesaid G.O. dated 19.6.2006 no revenue or consolidation authority shall cancel long standing entries without 'hearing the person concerned. I have held in Smt. Kunti and Ors. v. Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut and Ors. 2009 (107) RD 405 (supra) that if number of affected persons is more then notice may be served even through publication in some newspaper. However, some notice is essential before cancelling the long standing entry.
10. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.