JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, by which, ex-parte, it had been held that revenue entries with regard to the petitioners vis-a-vis Plots No. 240 and 461 were fraudulent, had filed an Appeal. The Appellate Court by its order dated 28.08.2018 approved the order dated 24.04.2018. Aggrieved thereof the instant writ petition was filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners had assailed the two orders and had submitted that by wrongly placing reliance on a Judgment reported in [2009(107) RD 35 (H)] (Jai Prakash and Others Vs. L.M.C.) equivalent to (RLT 2009, 710 (Jai Prakash and others vs. LMC), the State authorities had expunged the entries in favour of the petitioners and had entered the Gaon Sabha as its owner. Learned counsel submitted that by simply stating that entries were fraudulent the petitioners could not be deprived of their rights of being heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that under Section 38 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, if any order is passed, it can be so done only after considering the objections filed and on the basis of evidence produced. He further submits that had an opportunity of hearing been given and had the petitioners been allowed to file their objections alongwith their evidence with regard to ownership over Plot No.515 (out of which Plot No. 240 was carved out) then they would have established that entries in their favour were not fraudulent. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out to the Khatauni of the year 1371 F and drew the attention of the Court to the orders of the Consolidation Officer dated 07.02.1965 by which the petitioners' names were entered over the relevant Plots. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the decision reported in [2009(107) RD 35 (H)] (Jai Prakash and Others Vs. L.M.C.) equivalent to (RLT 2009, 710 (Jai Prakash and others vs. LMC) definitely does not lay down the correct law as no entry can be presumed to be fraudulent. He submits that opportunity had to be granted to rebut the allegation of fraud. 4. L.M.C.) equivalent to (RLT 2009, 710 (Jai Prakash and others vs. LMC) definitely does not lay down the correct law as no entry can be presumed to be fraudulent. He submits that opportunity had to be granted to rebut the allegation of fraud. 4. Learned counsel further submits that had an entry been held to be fraudulent by some judicial order earlier in point of time then it could have been removed without affording any opportunity of hearing, but without any adjudication no order could be passed without adhering to be principles of natural justice. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submits in reply that a fraudulent entry had always to be removed without affording opportunity of hearing. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the definite view that any order which affects a civil right could be passed only after adhering to the principles of natural justice as has been held by the Supreme Court in 1967 AIR 1269, State of Orissa vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & ORS. Relevant portion of Para 12 of the Judgment is being reproduced here asunder:- "It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequence, as already stated, must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence." 7. Under such circumstances, I hold that the order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the respondent No.3, Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil-Khaga, District Fatehpur and the order dated 28.08.2018 passed by the respondent No.1, Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are accordingly quashed. 8. I also hold that the law laid down in [2009(107) RD 35 (H)] (Jai Prakash and Others Vs. L.M.C.) equivalent to (RLT 2009, 710 (Jai Prakash and others vs. LMC) that an entry could be done away with without affording any opportunity of hearing is an incorrect law. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.