JUDGMENT : SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 22.10.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahar and the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. 2. The case of the petitioner had been that since she had been in possession over Plot Nos.839, 842 and 1596 since 1988, she had become a Bhumidhar and, therefore, she be entered as such. In this regard, the petitioner had filed orders of the Consolidation Court which had recognised her possession over the plots in question. She had stated that even if the entries after the consolidation operations were not taken into account, the authorities under the various provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 had to recognize her Bhumidhari rights, since her possession over the plots in question was there since before 1988. 3. When the petitioner's application was not being decided, she had approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No.36303 of 2015 (Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) which was disposed of on 6.7.2015 with a direction that the application filed by the petitioner be decided. When the order was not being complied with, the petitioner approached this Court again by means of Contempt Application No.4919 of 2016 in which notices were issued. Thereafter, the order 22.10.2016 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Sikandrabad, District Bulandshahr stating that as despite notice dated 7.10.2016 the petitioner had not appeared, the documents filed by the petitioner were rejected as having not been proved. A further finding was arrived at that they were not to be found on the record. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a Revision which was also dismissed on 24.11.2017 and despite the fact that the petitioner had shown all the documents to the Revisional Court also, it only relied upon a certain report of a team constituted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and did not advert to the various documents which the petitioner had with her and was placing before it. 4. The Revisional Court also, therefore, only reiterated the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and did not look into the various certified copies of various documents which the petitioner had with her. 5. 4. The Revisional Court also, therefore, only reiterated the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and did not look into the various certified copies of various documents which the petitioner had with her. 5. Learned counsel referring to page 58, referred to a 'Question & Answer', obtained under Right to Information Act, which definitely showed that a CH Form 11 was issued to the petitioner and submitted that the Court below without verifying the veracity of the documents of the petitioner only ex-parte concluded that her documents were not to be found in the revenue records. He, therefore, submits that the orders were erroneous in as much as they had not considered the documents which were relevant and were in the possession of the petitioner. 6. Learned Standing Counsel, however, in reply, submitted that when the petitioner had chosen not to appear despite notice, then there was no other option with the authorities but to decide the case ex-parte. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since the initial order was passed ex-parte, the petitioner definitely was not given opportunity to show her documents which were in her possession. I am also of the view that the Revisional Court also fell in error as it did not advert to the submissions as were made by the petitioner before it. 8. The orders dated 22.10.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the order dated 24.11.2017 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, therefore, cannot be sustained and, thus, are quashed. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sikandrabad, District Bulandshshar shall now pass orders afresh after hearing the petitioner. Needless to say that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate would definitely look into the documents which the petitioner has in her possession and only after giving a definite finding with regard to their genuineness, the claim of the petitioner shall be decided. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.