JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Notice on behalf the respondent nos.1 to 5 and 7 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Shri D.P. Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of Gram Pradhan, while Shri Shishir Pradhan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.6. 3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28.09.2020 passed by the S.D.M. Sadar, Raebareli. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is patta holder of Gata No.548M measuring 0.023 Hectare, in whose favour the lease was executed on 28.01.1976 at Serial No.28 duly recorded in Khatauni. The name of the petitioner could not be incorporated in the revenue record by mistake. Accordingly, the petitioner made an application for getting his name duly incorporated in the revenue record. 5. It has further been urged that the Consolidation Officer, Raebareli in Case no.729 under Section 9-A(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 after hearing the parties concerned and finding that though the name of petitioner was recorded as patta holder, but on account of inadvertence, his name was scored out and as such thereafter he ordered vide order dated 28.02.2017 the name of the petitioner to be duly incorporated. 6. The further submission is that the respondent no.6, who is the person having political influence had written a complaint addressed to the S.D.M. Sadar indicating that the name of the petitioner has incorrectly been incorporated and requested that an inquiry be set up taking into consideration of the aforesaid complaint. The S.D.M. Sadar by means of the impugned order dated 28.09.2020 has passed an order directing the Consolidation Officer to correct the entry. 7. The further submission is that the impugned order has the effect of a final order and once the right of the petitioner is being affected, he was a necessary party and ought to have been given opportunity of hearing to explain his case. 8. It has further been submitted that the S.D.M. Sadar has been completely influenced by the letter/complaint made by the respondent no.6 and under political influence, the impugned order has been passed. 9. 8. It has further been submitted that the S.D.M. Sadar has been completely influenced by the letter/complaint made by the respondent no.6 and under political influence, the impugned order has been passed. 9. The thrust of the submission is that the impugned order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner and is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence it is prayed that the order dated 28.09.2020 be set aside. 10. Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of written instructions which is taken on record has submitted that the Tehsildar in terms of its investigation has found that the name of the petitioner does not find mention at Serial No.28 in respect of the leased land, which was allotted on 28.01.1976 as alleged by the petitioner and as such, it is the duty of the Revenue Authorities to correct the entries once any discrepancy has been brought to the notice of such revenue authority. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner cannot plead foul. 11. Be that as it may, the facts reveal that an order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 28.02.2017 by the Consolidation Officer after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. On the perusal of the impugned order dated 28.09.2020, it does not indicate that the petitioner has ever called upon to make his submission and it is clearly ex-parte as far as the petitioner is concerned. Even though, if the said order has been passed on the administrative side, yet it refers to the report of the Tehsildar and the S.D.M. has given its finding/opinion on the said report, which is binding on the Consolidation Officer and thus to that extent, it is final in nature as the operative portion of the order dated 28.09.2020 leaves no scope for considering the case of the petitioner. 12. In any case, the least the respondent no.5 could have done was to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to put his case and this has not been done. The learned Standing Counsel also could not dispute the fact that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before passing of order dated 28.09.2020. 13. Considering the aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order which is going to affect his rights. The learned Standing Counsel also could not dispute the fact that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner before passing of order dated 28.09.2020. 13. Considering the aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order which is going to affect his rights. This Court is of the considered view that ends of justice can be served by setting aside the impugned order dated 28.09.2020 with liberty to the S.D.M. concerned to pass fresh orders after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who shall also be given the copy of the report of the Tehsildar dated 18.09.2020 and the petitioner will be entitled to file his objections. The S.D.M. concerned without being influenced by the earlier order shall pass a fresh order after hearing the parties concerned in accordance with law within a period of 5 months. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the order dated 28.09.2020 is set aside and the writ petition shall stand allowed. 15. However, there shall be no order as to costs.