Judgment:
S.U. Khan, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against order dated 29.6.2009, passed by Consolidation Officer, Robertsganj district Sonebhadra in Case Nos. 18 to 54 under Section 42A of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Through the impugned order pattas granted to the petitioners and others have been held to be fictitious and forged. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has filed copies of alleged pattas alongwith rejoinder-affidavit and original pattas have been shown to the court. Pattas appear to have been granted in the year 1971-72. Copy of the notices issued to the petitioners is Annexure-2 to the writ petition which was issued on 24.6.2009 fixing 29.6.2009 as the date (the case itself was decided on 29.6.2009). It was extremely insufficient notice. Atleast two weeks notice should have been given to the affected persons. Even after issuing notices, it has been mentioned in the impugned order that hearing is not necessary.
2. Patta if in-fact granted cannot be cancelled by consolidation authorities. It can be cancelled only under Section 198(4) of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. However, if in-fact no patta has been granted and name is just continuing in the revenue records or patta is void ab initio or period of patta (particularly assami patta) has expired then it may be avoided and ignored by Consolidation authorities vide Similesh Kumar v. Gaon Sabha, Uskar, Ghariapur and Ors. : AIR 1977 All 360 and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation : AIR 2000 SC 878 : 2000 (2) AWC 933 (SC).
3. Accordingly, it is directed that petitioners shall appear before the Consolidation Officer on 12.10.2009 alongwith certified copy of this judgment and their objections supported by affidavits annexing therewith photocopies of the pattas which the petitioners allege to have been executed in their favour. It appears that orders have been passed against 37 persons out of whom 21 have filed this writ petition. Accordingly, C.O. is directed to publish a general notice in some such daily newspaper which has got wide > circulation in the area in question (e.g. Dainik Jagran or Amar Ujala) containing the names of other remaining persons and stating therein that on 12.10.2009 matter would be heard again. On 12.10.2009, matter must be heard again and in case C.O. is of the opinion that his earlier order dated 29.6.2009 is not correct in the light of the observations made above then, same shall be set aside otherwise it shall be maintained. Until 12.10.2009 petitioners or any other person against whom impugned order dated 29.6.2009 has been passed shall not be evicted from the land in dispute. If on 12.10.2009 objections are filed then the objectors shall not be evicted until decision of the matter by C.O. provided that they do not seek more than one adjournment. If the C.O. even after hearing the petitioners and other affected persons comes to same conclusion of fraud etc. as was recorded by him in his impugned judgment then records must be corrected, petitioners and others must be evicted forthwith, Rs. 10,000 per hectare per year damages shall be recovered from them like arrears of land revenue and F.I.Rs. must also be lodged against them and against erring officials.
4. Learned standing counsel on the basis of instructions received by him states that action is in progress against the erring officials.
5. With the above observations writ petition is disposed of.
6. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Shri N.P. Pandey, learned standing counsel for immediate communication to the Consolidation Officer.