JUDGMENT : SAURABH LAVANIA, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned Counsel for the Gaon Sabha and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel. 2. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that inadvertently the typographical error related to particulars of opposite party no. 2, could not be corrected and he may be permitted to correct the same during the course of the day. 3. Learned State Counsel has no objection to the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner is permitted to correct the opposite party no. 2 in the memo of petition, during the course of the day. In view of the facts of case that opposite party no. 9 is vendor of the petitioner, issuance of notice to the opposite party no. 9 is hereby dispensed with. 5. The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs: “to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 21.01.2020 passed by opposite party no. 5 in Case No. T201910690114554 (State Vs. Phool Chand) under Section 104/105 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and also the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by opposite party no. 2 in Case No. C202010000000372 (M/s Mohammad Taiyab Quraishi & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 respectively.” 6. The dispute relates to Khata No. 707 comprising of Gata Nos. 979-Ka/0.0200 Hec., 980-Ka/0.1000 Hec. 982-Kha/0.1800 Hec. 983/0.2500 Hec. and 985Ga/0.0200 Hec. situated at Village Katra Peepar Khera, Pargana Harha, Tehsil and District Unnao. 7. The land in issue at relevant time was recorded in the name of Phool Chand/opposite party no. 9. 8. The opposite party no. 9 sought permission to sale the land and District Magistrate Unnao, permitted the opposite party no. 9 to sale the land vide letter no. 484/DLRC-Anu dated 23.03.2004. Thereafter the opposite party no. 9 sold the land in issue, detailed above, to the petitioner by way of registered sale deed on 25.03.2004. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner, after seeking permissions including the permission under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (‘Act of 1950’) constructed a Petrol Pump in the year 2006. 10. 484/DLRC-Anu dated 23.03.2004. Thereafter the opposite party no. 9 sold the land in issue, detailed above, to the petitioner by way of registered sale deed on 25.03.2004. 9. Thereafter, the petitioner, after seeking permissions including the permission under Section 143 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 (‘Act of 1950’) constructed a Petrol Pump in the year 2006. 10. After the aforesaid, as indicated, on a complaint, a report was called and after receiving report dated 16.09.2019 from opposite party no. 5/Sub Divisional Officer/Assistant Collector I Class, Sadar, Unnao, the opposite party no. 4/Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Unnao, vide order dated 26.09.2019, without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, cancelled the order dated 23.03.2004, whereby the opposite party no. 9 was permitted to sale the land in issue, and also the order dated 26.04.2005, whereby one Dashrath was permitted to sale the land as indicated in Khata No. 465. 11. Assailing the order dated 26.09.2019, a Revision No. C202010000000372 (M/s Mohammad Taiyab quraishi and Sons Versus State of U.P. and another) alongwith an application for condonation of delay has been instituted under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 before opposite party no. 2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which is pending consideration. 12. From bare perusal of impugned orders it is evident that same are based upon the order dated 26.09.2019 which is in issue, before the revisional authority i.e. opposite party no. 2. 13. In relation to impugned order dated 21.01.2020, learned Counsel for the petitioner says that in fact no notice was served upon the petitioner. In continuation it is stated that a perusal of impugned order indicates that notice was published in daily newspaper namely “Aaj” on 18.01.2020 and without waiting for reasonable period, the opposite party no. 5 in utter arbitrary manner passed the impugned order dated 21.01.2020. The impugned order dated 21.01.2020 was passed within three days after the publication of notice in newspaper. From these facts it is evident that opposite party no. 5 has not exercised his power in judicious manner. It appears that under some compulsion the opposite party no. 5 has passed the order impugned. Thus, in utter violation of principles of natural justice the impugned order dated 21.01.2020 was passed by opposite party no. 5 in the proceedings instituted under Section 104/105 of U.P. Revenue Code. 2006 (in short ‘Code of 2006’). 14. It appears that under some compulsion the opposite party no. 5 has passed the order impugned. Thus, in utter violation of principles of natural justice the impugned order dated 21.01.2020 was passed by opposite party no. 5 in the proceedings instituted under Section 104/105 of U.P. Revenue Code. 2006 (in short ‘Code of 2006’). 14. In relation to order dated 02.02.2024, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that while passing the impugned order, the opposite party no. 2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow has failed to take note of the fact that no notice was served upon the petitioner prior to passing of order dated 21.01.2020 as there is no findings in the impugned order on this aspect of the case, though the opposite party no. 2 ought to have considered the fact that notice was published on 18.01.2020 and immediately after three days the impugned order was passed. 15. He further submitted that a perusal of the impugned orders would show that the same are based upon the order dated 26.09.2019 and assailing the same a revision is pending consideration before the authority concerned i.e. opposite party no. 2, which was passed on the basis of an enquiry report dated 16.09.2019. 16. He further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, including that the petitioner is bona-fide purchaser of the land in issue, which was sold by the opposite party no. 9 after due permission granted by the District Magistrate on 23.03.2004 and since date of purchase of land in issue i.e. 25.03.2004, the petitioner is in possession of the property in issue and he also constructed a Petrol Pump duly allotted by the ‘Bharat Petroleum Corporation’ the indulgence of this Court is required in the instant case. 17. Learned Counsel for the side opposite, opposed the present petition. However, they could not dispute the factual aspect of the case, as narrated above. 18. Considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. 19. It would be apt to indicate that at this stage the factual aspect including the facts related to granting of permission under Section 157A of the Act of 1950, are not to be entered into by this Court because the revision challenging the order dated 26.09.2019 is pending consideration before the revisional authority i.e. opposite party no. 2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. 20. 2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow. 20. For the reasons aforesaid, for the purposes of causing interference in the orders impugned, this Court is only taking note of the fact which would be relevant for coming to the conclusion that as to whether proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner or not, before passing the order dated 21.01.2020 affirmed vide order impugned order dated 02.02.2024. 21. From the impugned orders dated 21.01.2020 and 02.02.2024 it is apparent that notice was published in newspaper on 18.01.2020 and within three days after publication of notice the opposite party no. 5 passed the order dated 21.01.2020 and being so to the view of this Court the order dated 21.01.2020 was passed without providing proper opportunity of hearing and while passing the order dated 02.02.2024 the respondent no. 2 failed to take note of this aspect of the case also that a revision challenging the order dated 26.09.2019, the basis of impugned order, is pending consideration before him, which as per the case of the petitioner was also passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 22. In view of the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the petitioner while passing the impugned order dated 21.01.2020, affirmed vide impugned order dated 02.02.2024 and being so interference of this Court is required. 23. In the facts of the case, this Court finds it appropriate to remand this matter before opposite party no. 2 as the revision challenging the order dated 26.09.2019, the basis of impugned order, is pending consideration before him. 24. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 02.02.2024 passed by opposite party no. 2 is set aside. 25. The matter is remanded back to the opposite party No. 2, who shall consider and decide the revision of petitioner challenging the order dated 21.01.2020 a fresh alongwith the Revision No. C20241000000 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 26.09.2019, the basis of the orders in issue in this petition, and also other cases/revisions, wherein the subject matter relates to order dated 26.09.2019. It is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. 26. The opposite party no. It is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions. 26. The opposite party no. 2 shall provide proper opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties and decide the matter expeditiously say within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. 27. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the factual aspect of the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. 28. Till final decision in the matter, the parties are directed to maintain status-quo.