JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. Petitioner claimed that on 16.1.1982 land in dispute comprised in Plot No. 436, area 0.410 hectares was allotted to him by the Gaon Sabha validly. 3. A report was made to the effect that the name of the petitioner had illegally been incorporated in the Khatauni of 1397 to 1402 Fasli over the land in dispute (Prior to that it was entered as Usar hence belonging to Gaon Sabha). On the basis of the report of Tehsildar, Akbarpur dated 7.8.2004, S.D.O., Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat in Case No. 12 of 2004 under Section 33/39, L.R. Act directed the cancellation of the name of the petitioner through order dated 18.8.2004, Annexure-II to the writ petition. In the said order, it is mentioned that on the basis of forged order of Tehsildar dated 31.7.1987, the name of petitioner was entered in the revenue record on 31.7.1992 for which purpose petitioner had given application on 11.6.1992. The order of Tehsildar was shown to have been passed in Case No. 274. It is further mentioned that as per records Case No. 274 of 1987 did not relate to the land in dispute and it was a case in between Sudara and Kalwawati which was decided on 17.1.1987. Thereafter, it was held that the photstat copy of order of Tehsildar dated 31.7.1987 filed by the petitioner was forged (non-existent) and parvana for making mutation in R-6 was not mentioned in the index. It is further mentioned that Case No. 274 of 1987 did not relate to the village where property in dispute is situate i.e. Akbarpur but it related to property situate in village Kichal and the said order was passed on the basis of a sale-deed. It is further mentioned that in C.H. Form No. -41, plot in dispute is mentioned as Usar. 4. Even though in the order dated 18.8.2004, detailed reasons have been given, however there is a major defect in the said order to the effect that notice was not issued to the petitioner and he was not heard. Against the said order petitioner filed Revision No. 287 of 2004, which has been dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur on 17.3.2006, hence this writ petition. 5. Against the said order petitioner filed Revision No. 287 of 2004, which has been dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur on 17.3.2006, hence this writ petition. 5. It is repeatedly held by this Court that even if the allegation is that entry is forged, fictitious, manipulated or made on the basis of non-existent order still person concerned must be heard. In this regard reference may be made to the following authorities: (i) Chaturgan v. State, 2005 (98) RD 244 (ii) Kunti v. Commissioner, 2009(5) ADJ 728 : 2009 (107) RD 405 6. It is correct that if someone makes manipulation, not only the entry is to be cancelled but the person is to be saddled with heavy damages and in appropriate case criminal proceedings may also be initiated. However, all these things can be done only when a finding regarding forgery, manipulation etc. is recorded after hearing the person concerned. 7. In this regard reference may be made to a judgment given by me in Dina Nath v. State of U.P., 2009(9) ADJ 735 : 2009 (108) RD 321, relevant paragraph of the said authority are quoted below: “10. If the Collector finds that no patta was executed in 1968 and Ram Roop and his family members usurped the property of the Gaon Sabha on the ground that prior to 1969, he was Pradhan, then stern action must be taken/recommended to be taken against the C.O. who passed the order on 12.2.1997. Collector may also re-open all such cases in the District in which Gaon Sabha property was mutated in the name of private persons in the similar manner. If patta is executed, then immediately name of the allottee is mutated in the revenue records. Few months delay in getting the names mutated in the revenue records on the basis of pattas is understandable but few decades or few years delay is not at all understandable. 11. The experience of the Court is that during consolidation proceedings, Consolidation Authorities/Officers liberally donate the Gaon Sabha properties to influential/resourceful persons by passing such orders as has been passed in the instant case. 12. 11. The experience of the Court is that during consolidation proceedings, Consolidation Authorities/Officers liberally donate the Gaon Sabha properties to influential/resourceful persons by passing such orders as has been passed in the instant case. 12. Accordingly, all the Collectors of all the Districts in the State are directed to re-open such cases where names of private persons are entered in revenue records on the basis of old pattas or adverse possession over Gaon Sabha land and correct the illegality by taking suo motu action. However, no orders shall be set aside without issuing notice and hearing affected persons. If notice through registered post is not served then it may be served through publication in the newspaper also. If it is found that some Consolidation Officer or S.O.C. or D.D.C. has done similar thing, then the action must be proposed to be taken against him also. 13. Supreme Court has held that fraud vitiates even most solemn proceedings vide Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail and others, AIR 1995 SC 1205 (Para-9), United India Insurance Company v. Rajendra Singh, AIR 2000 SC 1165 and A.V. Papaya Sastry v. Government of A.P. and others, AIR 2007 SC 1546 (Para-39).” 8. The said judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court in the form of SLP (Civil) SC 4398 of 2010 Dina Nath v. State. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 29.3.2010 by holding that “The learned Single Judge could see through the game of Ramroop and like and dismissed the writ petition by recording the following reasons” and thereafter quoted almost my entire judgment in inverted commas and approved the same. A similar matter has recently been decided by me pertaining to Ghaziabad on 1.3.2012. The said judgment is in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Lajja Ram, 2012 RJ 777 para 30 of the said authority is quoted below: “Accordingly, it is held that whenever a person comes alongwith the case that Gaon Sabha land was allotted to him or some order was passed by any Court in his favour declaring his right over Gaon Sabha land or some revenue entry was in his favour long before but during last several years his name is not recorded in the revenue records then an irrebuttable presumption amounting to almost conclusive proof must be drawn to the effect that allotment order or entry is forged.” 9. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders are set aside. Petitioner is directed to appear before S.D.O., Akbarpur, Kanpur Dehat on 4.9.2012 alongwith certified copy of this order and his detailed objections. S.D.O. shall decide the matter very expeditiously in no case beyond 30.11.2012. Absolutely no adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner. If S.D.O. comes to the conclusion that no allotment was made in favour of the petitioner and entry is the result of forgery then the entry shall at once be cancelled, petitioner shall forthwith be dispossessed and damages at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per hectare per year for the entire period for which petitioner remained in possession shall be recovered from him like arrears of land revenue. If S.D.O. thinks appropriate, he may launch criminal proceedings not only against the petitioner but those revenue officers also who are responsible for the forgery etc. 10. In future the revenue authorities must comply with the requirement of natural justice of hearing a person before passing the order. Even if the impugned order is correct still the S.D.O. as well as Additional Commissioner have helped the petitioner in obtaining the stay order from this Court. In case order would have been passed after hearing the petitioner, this Court would not have granted the stay order. In their over anxiety they caused huge loss to the State. It appears that revenue authorities do not even know a-b-c-d of procedure law. In some appropriate case the Court may even direct recovery of damages from the officers who pass orders without hearing the parties concerned. 11. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to Sri Sobh Nath, learned standing counsel within three days. ——————