JUDGMENT B. L, Yadav, J. 1. By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing order dated 25-11-1980 passed by Sub-Divisional/Demarcation Officer (Annexure 12 to the petition) purporting to be order declaring the land in dispute to be agricultural area, whereas infact prior to that it has already been declared as non-agricultural area and those proceedings have become final. 2. This case appears to have a chequered history. The petitioners are infact grand sons of Lala Lakshminarain proprietor of village Meerapur, Mohalla Danda and Dariya, Distt. Hamirpur. The land in dispute was let out to the State of U.P. for the purposes of enhancing the elegance of the 'Kothi Narain Rao' in occupation of the Collector and District Magistrate, Hamirpur. The land in dispute was recorded as occupancy tenancy of 'Sarkar Kaiser-i-Hind Mutalike bangla Collector Sahib Bahadur' (vide Annexure 1 to the writ petition) in the khatauni for the last more than a century but it contained only few fruit bearing trees. In nature the land was 'Banjar' and 'Parti' except an insignificant portion which was cultivated sometime and was used as kitchen garden of the Collector. The U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956 (for short the Act) came into force with effect from 12-3-1957 and the land in dispute was demarcated under section 5 of the Act as agricultural area and the notification under section 8 of the Act was published indicating 1-7-1961 as the date of vesting of agricultural area in Hamirpur District. As the land in dispute was not an agricultural area as defined nor it was covered within the definition of agricultural area under section 2 (1) (a) (c) (iii) of the Act, the Board of Revenue detected the mistake to the effect that even the land in dispute was non- agricultural area but by an oversight or some mistake it has been demarcated as agricultural area and consequently stayed the implementation of the Gazette notification under section 8, Chapter 3 of the Act. A direction was issued by the Board of Revenue (vide notification no. 1892/9 demarcation 979 dated May 4, 1962, Annexure 2 to the writ petition) for correction of the mistake. Some other mistakes in other parts of the Distt. were also pointed out. A direction was issued by the Board of Revenue (vide notification no. 1892/9 demarcation 979 dated May 4, 1962, Annexure 2 to the writ petition) for correction of the mistake. Some other mistakes in other parts of the Distt. were also pointed out. The notices were given even to the petitioner as contemplated by section 4 (2) of the Act, in respect of demarcation of the land as non-agricultural area, but as it was basically non-agricultural area, therefore, no objection was filed by the petitioner under section 4 (3) of the Act and final demarcation was done by the Commissioner under section 5 of the Act, on the proposal of the Collector Hamirpur/Demarcation Officer. The records were consequently corrected after following the procedure prescribed. The mistakes have been pointed out in the relevant Khatauni to the effect that the land was earlier recorded as agricultural area and now it was being corrected as non-agricultural area (vide Annexure 4 to the petition). THIS proposed correction was dated 5-9-1964 and the Tehsildar reported the matter vide his order dated 7-9-64 to the District Land Reforms Officer, and the mistake was directed to be corrected regarding the land in dispute as non-agricultural area (Annexure 5 to the petition). Ultimately the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were also informed. The demarcation khatauni was corrected and Chapter 3 of the Act was implemented and the notification in the Gazette was to be issued declaring the land in dispute as non-agricultural area. The State of U.P. began to raise pucca residential houses over some portion of the land in dispute after cutting green trees and thereby started changing nature of the land in violation of the conditions of the lease deed in favour of the State which subsisted. After serving notices under section 80 CPC and 111 (g) of Transfer of Property Act petitioner no. 1 filed Civil Suit no. 21 of 1972 and the rest of the petitioners filed suit no. 88 of 19 72 for ejectment of the State of U.P., demolition of constructions, damages for a sum of Rs. 612.50 P. including future damages to the tune of Rs. 36.75 P. as arrears of rent and Rs. 30/- as costs of notice. 3. 21 of 1972 and the rest of the petitioners filed suit no. 88 of 19 72 for ejectment of the State of U.P., demolition of constructions, damages for a sum of Rs. 612.50 P. including future damages to the tune of Rs. 36.75 P. as arrears of rent and Rs. 30/- as costs of notice. 3. State of U.P. contested aforesaid suits raising preliminary objection about the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Munsif Magistrate and jurisdiction of the Civil Court but ultimately it was held that Munsif Magistrate has pecuniary jurisdiction and the Civil Court has jurisdiction. Against this order revisions filed before the District Judge were dismissed on 20-9-75. Thereafter two revisions were filed before this Court for deciding preliminary points which were also dismissed on 28-1-76. Ultimately the problem of pendency of the suit and consequently demolition of constructions and ejectment etc. were referred to the State Government and the matter was thrashed out at the Government level. However, after about 2 1/2 years State of U.P. filed written statement denying other plaint allegations and alleging that the State was occupancy tenant in pursuance of the lease deed and it has full rights to make constructions. It was also alleged that plots no. 6 and 9 were metaled roads which were constructed long ago and the State had acquired rights through adverse possession. It was further alleged that Civil Court has no jurisdiction by implication that the land in dispute was agricultural land and the demarcation proceedings indicating the land to be non-agricultural were incorrect. Both the Civil Suits, however, were decreed by the decree and judgment dated 19-12-77 (Annexure 8 to the petition) and these decrees and judgments were maintained in the First Appeals and the Second Appeals filed against the same came up for hearing before one of us (Hon'ble R. M. Sahai, J.). These Second Appeals being Second Appeal Nos. 1747 and 1741 of 1980, State of U.P. v. Jagdish Saran Singhal were dismissed on merits on 28-5-1982 and the decision is reported in 1982 ALJ 1302. 4. The facts in the second appeal have been precisely stated in para 5 at page 1304 of 1982 ALJ as follows : "What appears is that in 1957 after enforcement of the Act, land in dispute was demarcated as 'agricultural' area and a notification under section 8 was also published in Government Gazette on 1-7-1961. 4. The facts in the second appeal have been precisely stated in para 5 at page 1304 of 1982 ALJ as follows : "What appears is that in 1957 after enforcement of the Act, land in dispute was demarcated as 'agricultural' area and a notification under section 8 was also published in Government Gazette on 1-7-1961. On 4th May, 1962 a letter No. 189/Demar/79 was issued from Secretary Board of Revenue to all District Magistrates of Kumaon and Uttar Kashi, Dehradun and Rampur on subject of 'correction of mistakes in the demarcation records of the Urban Areas in which vesting under section 8 UP ZA and LR Act has taken place with effect from July 1, 1961, pointing out as a result of scrutiny by District Officer themselves or by the officers of the Board mistakes were found to exist in the demarcated records of a large number of urban areas in the State.................. In pursuance of this letter the records appear to have been scrutinised and a proposal was made that the plots in dispute comprising of bungalow of Collector along with adjoining land which is in his compound and had been demarcated as agricultural area may be corrected and recorded as non-agricultural area. The corrections as proposed were approved on 5-9-(sic). These endorsements are on the extract of khatauni which was admitted in evidence by lower appellate court. " On the aforesaid admitted facts it was tried to be urged strenuously on behalf of State of U.P. that the mistake of recording the land as agricultural land could not have been corrected under section 6 of the Act and as a consequence thereof the land could not have been recorded as non-agricultural area but this argument was repelled and the findings of the Courts below were upheld In this background we have to consider the controversy involved in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that impugned order dated 25-11-80 has been passed by Sub-Divisional/Demarcation Officer in violation of principles of natural justice and in substance it has been ordered that the land in dispute may be recorded again as agricultural area treating the declaration and correction of the mistake under section 6 of the Act to be erroneous. No opportunity at all was given to the petitioners before passing the impugned order nor the petitioners were served with any notice nor they heard. No opportunity at all was given to the petitioners before passing the impugned order nor the petitioners were served with any notice nor they heard. The intention of the legislature appears to be manifest keeping in view the language employed under sections 4 and 5 of the Act that without hearing the person aggrieved the demarcation of the land cannot be made from non-agricultural to agricultural area. It was further urged that in the second appeal it was urged on behalf of the State that the land in dispute was agricultural area and that rectification of mistake as non agricultural area under section 6 of the Act even though at the behest of the State of U.P. the Collector, Tehsildar and Kanungo was not accepted, hence that chapter was closed, it was not open to the respondents to pass the impugned order again demarcating the land in dispute as agricultural area, and treating the declaration as non-agricultural, to be a mistake apparent particularly when the petitioners were not informed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the impugned order was correct. The land has correctly been demarcated as agricultural area and the mistake directing the land to be recorded as non-agricultural area has rightly been corrected and in such proceedings the petitioners were not required to be made party nor they had any right to be heard. Principles of natural justice have not been violated. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties the point for our determination is as to whether the land in dispute once being held to be non- agricultural area and the mistake being rectified under section 6 of the Act, was it open to the respondents to direct by impugned order the land in dispute to be recorded as agricultural area without issuing any notice to the petitioners and without hearing them. The next point emanating from the first one is as to what was the scope of rectification of mistake under section 6 of the Act. The last point germain to the controversy is as to whether the respondents have acted in good faith in discharge of their duties and whether a chance has been given to the delinquent for explanation and defence. As regards the first point it is better to read Chapter 2 of the Act so far as it is relevant for purposes of present controversy. As regards the first point it is better to read Chapter 2 of the Act so far as it is relevant for purposes of present controversy. Under Section 3 which occurs under Chapter 2, the State Government may, with a view to acquisition under the provisions of this Act of the rights, title and interest of intermediaries in urban area, direct by notification in the official ' Gazette ' that the agricultural area situated in any such area be demarcated. After that notification a preliminary proposal shall he published and the Commissioner shall publish the notice in the prescribed form i. e. Gazette to the effect that proposals as regards the demarcation of agricultural area has been formulated and are open to inspection. Sub-section (3) enacts that any person interested can within 3 months of the date of publication of the notice under Section 2 of the Act, file objections. Section 5 of the Act provides that, after the expiry of the period of three months, the Commissioner shall proceed to decide the objections and then finally demarcate the agricultural area. It appears to be clear that the legislature was conscious of the fact that before passing a final demarcation order as contemplated by Section 5 (1) of the Act a notice has to be published in the Gazette in the manner prescribed and the objections shall be invited. Persons interested may file objections within 3 months of the publication, In this way it is apparent that the Commissioner has been given the power to finally demarcate the land as agricultural area or otherwise only after issuing notices, inviting objections and hearing persons concerned as enshrined under Section 5 (i) of the Act. In the present case the rights of the petitioners were vitally affected inasmuch as earlier when the land was demarcated as agricultural area it was at the behest of the State Government, the District Magistrate or the Tehsildar Hamirpur that on the direction of the Board of Revenue the mistake in the proposals as demarcation of the agricultural area was corrected and the land in dispute was declared as non-agricultural area. Consequently the notification under Section 8 of the Act was also issued. As the land in dispute was non-agricultural area, the rights, title and interest of intermediaries could not be acquired and they continued. The land in dispute consequently could not be vested in the State. Consequently the notification under Section 8 of the Act was also issued. As the land in dispute was non-agricultural area, the rights, title and interest of intermediaries could not be acquired and they continued. The land in dispute consequently could not be vested in the State. Civil suits filed by the petitioners were decreed and this position was held to have become final by all the Courts including this Court in second appeal that the land in dispute was correctly demarcated as non-agricultural area and the mistake have been corrected. If any change in the declaration of the nature of the land from non-agricultural to agricultural was intended that could have been done only by serving a notice on the petitioners or affording them reasonable opportunity of being heard particularly the opportunity as contemplated by Rules 26, 31 and 33 of the U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1957. 7. There are three main principles of natural justice. 1st is that the Court or the persons deciding the dispute between the parties must be impartial or disinterested and the second is audi alteram partem i e. the persons whose interests are going to be affected must have been heard before the order is passed. These principles have been extended as a rule of fair play even to administrative decisions as they are applicable to judicial and quasi judicial authorities. See A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150 and J. Mahapatra and Co. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1984 SC 157 . 8. Apart from the principles that no one can be a Judge in his own cause, and audi alteram partem, there is a third principle of natural justice and it is that the tribunal, authority or the Court must act with good faith, honestly and not in bad faith. It is better to make a reference to an observation in Maclean v. Workers Union, (1929) 1 Ch. 620 : " It is clear that all that is meant by compliance with the rules of natural justice by a domestic tribunal is that the tribunal must act honestly and with good faith, and must give a delinquent a chance of explanation and defence. If its rules postulate an enquiry, the delinquent must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and of correcting and contradicting a relevant statement prejudicial to his view. If its rules postulate an enquiry, the delinquent must have a reasonable opportunity of being heard and of correcting and contradicting a relevant statement prejudicial to his view. " Relevant discussion can be found in Halsbury's Laws of England (Fourth Edition) Volume I para 60, page 67 as follows : "60. Bad faith, fraud and improper purpose. The exercise of a statutory power is invalid unless the repository of the power has acted honestly and in good faith. The deliberate promotion of a purpose, be it public or private, alien to that for which the power was conferred is to be regarded as an act of bad faith ; but in England administrative law practical illustrations of bad faith have been so rare that the concept has not taken a clear shape. " See Roberts v. Hop Wood, (1925) AC 578, Carlton Ltd. v. Works Comrs, (1943) 2 All. ER 560 at 563, Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223. 9. In the present case under the circumstances of the case we are satisfied that the impugned order was not passed in good faith rather it was passed in bad faith. The impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice particularly by affording no opportunity of filing objections or hearing as contemplated by Rules 26, 31 and 33 of the U.P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1957. 10. There are certain exception no doubt to the principles of natural justice but those exceptions are not applicable in the present case. In the present case as the Sub-Divisional Demarcation Officer was going to decide the nature of the land from non-agricultural to agricultural area under the provisions of the Act, and this was to the prejudice of the petitioners, in that event it was obligatory on the part of the authorities concerned to have passed impugned order only after issuing notices to the petitioners and affording them an opportunity of being heard. This could have been only possible judicial way to pass impugned order but the same was not done. See Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P. N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595 . This could have been only possible judicial way to pass impugned order but the same was not done. See Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. P. N. Sharma, AIR 1965 SC 1595 . Reverting to the next question emanating from the first one as to whether it was open to the respondents to proceed to redetermine nature' of the land once the declaration in respect of non-agricultural area of the land has been upheld in the civil suit which was finally decided by this Court. As this Court has finally determined that the nature of the land was correctly rectified as non-agricultural area hence that position must have been honourably accepted by the State of U.P. It can not be equated with an ordinary rectification nor State is expected to play game of hide and seek to the prejudice of persons whose rights are going to be vitally affected. It was therefore, not justified on the part of the respondents to have passed the impugned orders declaring the land to be agricultural area and carrying out consequential changes in the relevant Khatuni without notice to the petitioners and without hearing them. 11. In view of the premises aforesaid, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. The petition succeeds and is allowed with costs. Impugned order dated 25-11-80 and the consequential order dated 12-12-80 (Annexures 12 and 13 to the petition) are hereby quashed. Petition allowed.