HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - B No. - 793 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Ms.Vartika Pandey holding brief of Sri Anurag Narayan on behalf of the petitioner and the Standing counsel on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present dispute pertains to five plots i.e. plot No.s 46, 47, 170, 276 and 332 of Village Baraipur, Pargana Shivpuri Tehsil and District Varanasi which were recorded in the name of the petitioner in 1356 fasli. It has been submitted that the proceedings in the present case were initiated on the basis of a report of revenue authorities indicating that the said land is covered under Section 132 of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act and are also recorded as pond on which no rights can accrue to the petitioner at any stage and accordingly a case under Section 33/39 of U.P. Revenue Code was initiated against the petitioner by means of order dated 30.4.2008 and the revenue records were corrected and name of the petitioner was deleted. 3. While passing the said order Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and the revenue records were perused from which it transpired that the said land is covered under Section 132 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. They also considered the letter of Chairman, Board of Revenue dated 8.1.2007 stating that there has been manipulation of the revenue records and they got their name registered fraudulently. Therefore, the said revenue records be also corrected. It is in this regard that the letters Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Narain Srivastava, Piyush Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Satish Kumar Jaiswal .....Petitioner(s) Board Of Revenue, U.P., Lko. Thru. Chairman And Others .....Respondent(s) of the Commissioner and District Magistrate dated 1.12.2007 and 13..11.2007 were considered and had also placed reliance on the judgment of Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamla Devi and others passed in appeal No.4785 of 2001, 2001 (6) SCC 496 and it is only after considering the aforesaid materiel order dated 30.4.2008 has been passed deleting the name of the petitioner and recording the name of the State. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of Assistant Collector, Varanasi dated 30.4.2008 preferred a revision before Board of Revenue under Section 219 of U.P.Land Revenue Act. There also they only examined the report submitted by the revenue official and rejected the revision without considering any of the grounds raised by the petitioner. 5. Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a perusal of the order of Assistant Collector dated 30.4.2008 would indicate that even notices were not issued and accordingly no opportunity was given to the petitioner at any stage and they did not even associate the petitioner in the aforesaid proceedings and accordingly the said order deserves to be set aside being in violation of the principles of natural justice. The revisional court also did not consider any of the grounds raised by the petitioner. 6. The main ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that no opportunity was given to the petitioner before passing order under Section 33/39 of U.P. Revenue Code and though it is a case of title the petitioner was made a party but no notice was issued to him. 7. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition but could not dispute aforesaid facts. 8. Considering the arguments raised by the petitioner, we find that the Assistant Collector, Varanasi has allowed the application preferred by the State under Section 33/39 of U.P.Revenue Code only after a perusal of the report submitted by the revenue officials, revenue records as well as considering and perusing letters written by the Commissioner and the Chairman of the Board of Revenue. 9. He has not even bothered to issue notice to the petitioner and not WRIB No. 793 of 2025 2 invited any objection against the application made by the State under Section 33/39 of U.P. Revenue Code. The petitioner has stated that name of predecessor in interests of the petitioner was recorded in 1356 fasli and accordingly had right to get his name recorded in the revenue records and no such order or application for correction could have been moved for correction of the revenue courts and even passed orders without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 10. Undoubtedly, once a property came to be recorded in the name of the petitioner then the entries in favour of the petitioner could have been changed only after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the present case, we find that notices were never issued to the petitioner and Board of Revenue has also failed to take into account the said aspect of the matter while dismissing the revision of he petitioner by means of order dated 2.10.2021. In light of the above, we find that the impugned orders dated 22.10.2021 and 23.1.2023 passed by Board of Revenue as well as order dated 30.4.2008 passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class, Varanasi are in violation of the principles of natural justice and is accordingly set aside. 11. The matter is remitted to Assistant Collector First, Sadar, Varanasi to proceed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 33/39 of U.P. Revenue Code, expeditiously, say within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before him. 12. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings before the authority and shall file written submissions within a period of three weeks from today. 13. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. September 8, 2025 RKM. WRIB No. 793 of 2025 3 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench