JUDGMENT : Irshad Ali, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent - State. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order of opposite party No.1 dated 07.02.2001 by which earlier order dated 29.12.1997 has been cancelled without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner belongs to scheduled caste category and is a landless agricultural labourer. The petitioner is in continuous occupation and possession of the land in question for last more than 40 years. Initally, the said land was Usar land. The petitioner after putting his hard labour and skill could be able to turn the same into fertile land. Lekhpal of the circle submitted his report that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question prior to 03.06.1985 and at present he has sown 4. The then Up Zila Adhikari vide order dated 29.12.1997 considered the report of Tehsildar and other documents available on record of the case including khasra No.141 in which it was recorded that the petitioner has sown paddy crop on the said land. The land was not reserved under Section 132 of the Act. 5. On 08.12.2000 some employees of the Forest Department started digging out trenches of the land in question and on protest being made by the petitioners, he was threatened by them for dire consequences. The petitioner approached Up Zila Adhikari, Mishrikh by way of filing application dated 08.12.2000. The Up Zila Adhikari vide order dated 16.12.2000, restrained the Forest Range Officer, Mishrikh from digging out the trenches on the land of the petitioner. When forest department did not comply with the aforesaid order, the petitioner apprised the same to Additional District Magistrate, Sitapur, who vide order dated 30.12.2000 directed the Forest Range Officer, Misrikh to ensure the compliance of order dated16.12.2000. 6. The impugned order has been passed unilaterally after sufficient long time, which also amounts to review of earlier order dated 29.12.1997. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that on the basis of letter sent by the Director Incharge, Social Forestry, the order has been passed. In the said letter, it was alleged that the land in question was reserved for social forestry. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that on the basis of letter sent by the Director Incharge, Social Forestry, the order has been passed. In the said letter, it was alleged that the land in question was reserved for social forestry. Then allegedly inquiry was conducted by the Naib Tehsildar and then impugned order was passed by which the earlier order dated 29.12.1997 passed by his predecessor, has been cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that subsequent officer does not have jurisdiction to review the earlier order passed by his predecessor. His next submission is that the order impugned has been passed without notice and without giving opportunity of hearing. In this regard, statement of fact has been made in paragraph 18 and 19 of the writ petition. 8. On the other hand, learned Additional CSC for respondent - State submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and is just and valid order. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. It is admitted case of the parties that prior to passing of the order, no notice nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. It has also been admitted that the power to review does not have with the officer - respondent No.1, who has passed the impugned order. The statement of fact made in paragraph 18 & 19 of the writ petition has been admitted in paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit that no notice nor opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. 11. In view of reasons recorded above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 12. The impugned order dated 07.02.2001 is hereby quashed. 13. No order as to costs.