JUDGMENT Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. 1. Heard Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for petitioner and Sri Y.M.S. Yadav, learned standing Counsel for respondents. Through this writ petition order dated 3.8.2010 passed by Deputy D.M., Patti Pratapgarh in Case No. 40 under section 33/39 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, Shatrughan Tiwari and others v. Chandrashekhar and order dated 23.9.2013 passed by Additional Commissioner (II), Allahabad Division, Allahabad dismissing the Revision No. 32 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 3.8.2010 have been challenged. Through the impugned orders, it has been directed that name of the petitioner recorded over the land in dispute should be cancelled and the land in dispute should be re-entered as Gaon Sabha land. Land was directed to be entered as naveen parti, jungle, pond, abadi. It was held that forgery had been committed and manipulation had been made in the revenue records. FIR was also lodged against the officials, who had made manipulation in the records. 2. However, the Deputy D.M. committed a blunder by not hearing the petitioner. 3. It is repeatedly directed by this Court that such type of orders shall not be passed without hearing the persons likely to be affected therefrom, however the Deputy Collectors are not paying any heed. In this regard reference may be made to the authority of Chaturgan v. State , 2005 (98) RD 244 and Dina Nath v. State , 2009 (108) RD 321 which has been approved by Supreme Court in Dina Nath v. State , 2010 (15) SCC 218 : 2009 (108) RD 321 (para-4). In future the Court may consider to direct recording of adverse entry against the revenue officers, who pass such type of orders without hearing the persons concerned. However the Supreme Court in A.M.U. Aligarh v. M.A. Khan , AIR 2000 SC 2783 and Ashok Kumar Sonekar v. Union of India , 2007 (4) SCC 54 has held that if in a writ petition an order is challenged on the ground that opportunity of hearing was not provided then in the writ petition it must be shown that in case opportunity of hearing had been provided, what plausible cause the petitioner would have shown. 4. Petitioner's case is that D.D.C. Pratapgarh had passed an order in his favour on 24.3.1972 in Revision No. 2138, Chandrashekhar v. Gaon Sabha, copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 4. Petitioner's case is that D.D.C. Pratapgarh had passed an order in his favour on 24.3.1972 in Revision No. 2138, Chandrashekhar v. Gaon Sabha, copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In the said order, it is mentioned that earlier the revision had been dismissed on 24.1.1972, however review petition had been filed, which was allowed through order dated 24.3.1972. It is further mentioned in the said order that from the perusal of the record it was clear that the land in dispute was entered in the name of petitioner's father as bag bila lagan bhoomidhari and without any order, the said land was subsequently entered in the name of the Gaon Sabha. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is photostat copy of the revenue records of 1359 Fasli onward. On 26.11.2013, learned standing Counsel was directed to produce original records. Accordingly, the records were produced on 28.11.2013 and shown to the learned Counsel for petitioner also and photostat copies of relevant records were placed on record of this writ petition after providing one set to the learned Counsel for petitioner also as recorded in the order dated 28.11.2013. It was more than apparent even to the naked eye that manipulation by addition of the name of Sataya Narain father of the petitioner had been made in the records. They were clearly in different ink and handwriting. 5. The most glaring aspect of the matter is that the order of the D.D.C. dated 24.3.1972 was not mutated for 15 years. Application for mutation was filed under Rule 109 of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules and order was passed on 9.1.1989. Thereafter, petitioner's name was mutated. In case petitioner's review had been allowed then there was absolutely no question as to why petitioner would have remained silent. Even in the report of Consolidator, copy of which is Annexure-7, it has categorically been stated that mutation of the alleged order of March 1972 was not there in C.H. Form-45 available in Tehsil. In case order dated 24.3.1972 had in fact been passed there was no reason that why it was not included and mentioned in C.H. Form-45. In any case if due to inadvertence it had not been in fact so incorporated, it is impossible that petitioner would have remained silent for 15 years. 6. In case order dated 24.3.1972 had in fact been passed there was no reason that why it was not included and mentioned in C.H. Form-45. In any case if due to inadvertence it had not been in fact so incorporated, it is impossible that petitioner would have remained silent for 15 years. 6. It is experience of the Court that in consolidation people are rather liberally manufacturing forged orders and seeking their implementation after several years. Accordingly, no such order can be presumed to have been passed unless application for its mutation is promptly filed. Records of the revision have been weeded out. 7. Last but not least a Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Anar Kali v. D.D.C., 1997 (15) LCD 921 has held that D.D.C. has got no power to review. 8. As it was stark forgery and manipulation, hence impugned orders cannot be set aside on the ground of denial of opportunity of hearing. In any case in the writ petition petitioner has thoroughly been heard and original records have also been shown to his learned Counsel as well as to the Court. 9. The argument that in respect of abadi land, petitioner should not be evicted is also not acceptable as from the original records of 1359 Fasli, it is evident that over the said land also name of the petitioner's father was inserted much later fraudulently. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Petitioner shall be evicted forthwith.