Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:15564 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 210 of 2025 Petitioner :- Amar Bahadur And 13 Others Respondent :- Collector Pratapgarh Dist. Pratapgarh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Pandey,Manoj Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 and Mr. Tushar Gupta, learned counsel holding brief on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.4. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.02.2010 and 30.06.2023 whereby proceedings under Section 48 (3) of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 has been allowed. Since all the relevant material is already on record and all the opposite parties are also represented and the issue pertains only to opportunity of hearing to petitioners, the petition itself is being adjudicated upon at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit. Written instructions provided to the learned State counsel dated 10.3.2025 are taken on record. It has been submitted that earlier Chak No.54 of the village in question was in the ownership and possession of one Kamla Prasad and subsequently devolved upon his heirs from whom the petitioners purchased a portion of the aforesaid Chak No.54 in years preceding 2009 with mutation also being effected in their favour. It is submitted that subsequently a complaint was filed by one Anil Kumar Mishra on 01.9.2009 to the effect that the entries made in favour of heirs of Kamla Prasad were forged since the plot in question had already been declared to be surplus under Ceiling proceedings pertaining to the said Kamla Prasad. It is submitted that proceedings under section 48 of the Act thereafter were entertained on the basis of said complaint resulting in passing of the impugned order in the year 2010. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that although proceeding under Section 48 of the Act itself was incompetent but nonetheless in case such proceeding was being entertained, it was incumbent upon the DDC to have afforded opportunity of hearing to petitioners before recording a finding of entries in favour of petitioners being forged. It is submitted that the heirs of late Kamla Prasad also filed recall application against the said order passed in the year 2010 which has also been rejected by means of impugned order dated 30.6.2023. Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that a perusal of the impugned order itself will make it evident that the plot in question was earlier declared surplus in ceiling proceedings pertaining to the said Kamla Prasad and, therefore, his heirs did not have any authority whatsoever to have executed sale deeds in favour of petitioners. It is submitted that despite declaration of surplus, inadvertently mutation proceedings in favour of the Government could not be incorporated and taking advantage of such a lapse, mutation was effected in favour of petitioners, an error which has now been corrected. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the impugned order dated 11.02.2010 has been passed exercising revisional powers under section 48 of the Act of 1953. The said impugned order itself indicates that in case of fraudulent entries in revenue records an opportunity of hearing is not required to be provided and the proceedings can be determined without such notice. The order also does not indicate any notice having been issued to petitioners prior to passing of the impugned order and, therefore, naturally no opportunity of hearing has been provided to them. The impugned order dated 11.02.2010 has thereafter addressed the issue on merits and has recorded a specific finding that the entries made in favour of petitioners are fraudulent and has directed correction of revenue records. The order, therefore, is clearly in the nature of final adjudication. Section 48 (1) of the Act of 1953 clearly contemplates an opportunity of hearing being provided to the tenure holders prior to passing of any order detrimental to their title. The said provision has obviously been departed from in the impugned order. As a consequence thereof, since specific findings regarding title of petitioners have been recorded in the impugned order without providing them any notice or opportunity of hearing, the same being against the provision of section 48 of the Act of 1953, the order dated 11.02.2010 is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari so far as it pertains to the petitioners. Order dated 30.6.2023 having not been passed on any application preferred by the petitioners is, therefore, not being interfered with. As a consequence, the dispute is remanded to the DDC to pass fresh order pertaining to the complaint made against the petitioners only, after affording opportunity of hearing to them as contemplated under the Act. Consequently, the petition succeeds and allowed to the aforesaid extent, at the admission stage itself. Order Date :- 11.3.2025 mks Digitally signed by :- MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench