HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1002986 of 2000 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri Vimal Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajiv Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Sri Tripathi B.G. Balak, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. Notice was issued to the legal heirs of respondent No.4 which has been found to be deemed sufficient, therefore, the matter is ready for final disposal. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that the respondent No.4 moved an application under Section 28 of the Land Revenue Act, 1901 on which an ex-parte inspection report was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar of the concerned tehsil and on the basis of the said report, an order was passed by the respondent No.3 dated 1.2.2000, making correction in the map, being found the land less than area measured, against which, the petitioner filed revision and without applying his mind, the revision was also dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2000 by the respondent No.2. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of ex-parte inspection report, the orders of both the courts below have been passed without applying mind and without affording an opportunity of hearing to file objection on the inspection report to the petitioner. In this Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vimal Kishore Verma, Harsh Verma, Karunakar Srivastava, Vimal Kishore Verma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Karunakar Srivastava, R.N. Gupta, Sri Anoop Srivastava, Tripathi B.G. Balak, Vishnu Srivastava Sant Ram U.P.Z.A. .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Through Collector Gonda .....Respondent(s) regard, statement of fact has been made in paragraphs-16 and 17 of the writ petition. Next submission is that the inspection report being ex-parte in nature is not liable to be taken into consideration by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner while passing the order in the revision. 5. It is submitted that the petitioner has right to file his objection to the ex- parte inspection report submitted by the Naib Tehsildar and without filing objection to the inspection report, no impugned order could have been passed by the respondents. 6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that as per the averment made in the counter affidavit in regard to the ex-parte inspection report, in paragraph-17, the same has been admitted. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that he has no instruction in regard to ex-parte inspection report. 8. After having heard the submission advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record. 9. On perusal of the material placed on record, it is evident that the inspection report is ex-parte, which has been taken notice in the order of the Additional Collector and on the said basis, the impugned order dated 1.2.2000 has been passed by the Additional Collector. The revisional court also did not record any finding in regard to the ex-parte inspection report and proceeded to pass an order on 14.11.2000. 10. Once this is the state of affair that on the basis of ex-parte inspection report, the impugned order has been passed, the same cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, therefore, both the orders impugned are liable to be set aside by this Court. 11. In regard to the statement of fact made in paragraphs-16 and 17 of the writ petition, reply has been given in paragraph-17 of the counter affidavit, the same is quoted below :- "17. That the contents of paragraph 17 of the writ petition are not correct as stated, hence denied. It is submitted that the map compiled in the tehsil report was recorded WRIC No. 1002986 of 2000 2 on the basis of the site survey, however, it is not mentioned in the tehsil report whether the on-site investigation was conducted or not." 12. It clearly demonstrates the fact that the inspection was made, but the same was ex-parte inspection. 13. In view of the above, on short ground that the order impugned has been passed on the basis of ex-parte report, the orders impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 14. The petitioner would have been provided opportunity to be present at the time of the inspection so made and to file objection on the inspection rerport. 15. In view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is liable to be allowed on short ground that on the basis of ex- parte inspection report, impugned orders have been passed. 16. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 1.2.2000 and 14.11.2000 are hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 17. However, it is provided that the Additional Collector may provide opportunity to the petitioner to file objection to the ex-parte inspection report and thereafter, after considering the objection of the petitioner, to pass appropriate speaking order, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. September 3, 2025 Gautam WRIC No. 1002986 of 2000 3 (Irshad Ali,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench