ORDER
1. This writ petition is directed against an order of Joint Director of Consolidation whereby in exercise of power under Section 48 of U. P. Consolidation of Land Holdings Act (in short 'Act') he directed expunction of an amaldaramad made in CW Form 23. The amaldaramad expunged is in respect of plot No. 466 of village Seedha Sultanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Azamgarh recorded in the name of petitioner and in its place entry to be made is of "Deeh Asthan". The amaldaramad, which has been ordered to be expunged is in the name of petitioner recorded in pursuance of an order passed by Consolidation Officer on 31-3-1960 in case No. 2355.
2. The facts necessary for determining present controversy as set-out in writ petition are that the Consolidation Officer Azamgarh passed an order in Case No. 2355 of 31-3-60 to enter the name of petitioner Muzeeb over plot No. 338 (Old No. 466). The amaldaramad was done accordingly in relevant records of consolidation operation. It was also incorporated in revenue records later on. The order was given effect in CH Form 41 and CH Form 45 in the year 1960, the year in which consolidation operation also concluded in village. The petitioner claimed that the land was finally settled as part of petitioner's holding under consolidation operation. The District Government counsel (Revenue) Azamgarh (In short 'D. G. C,') challenged the amaldaramad by filing an application on 27-10-94 wherein it has been averred that the amaldaramad in respect of plot No. 338 (Old No. 466) was fraudulent. According to the D. G. C. the order of Consolidation Officer dated 31-3-60, which is basis of amaldaramad, is forged and non-existing order and, therefore, the amaldaramad was rightly deleted without any notice to petitioner. He claimed that plot in dispute be continued in papers as "Deeh Asthan". The Joint Director of Consolidation examined the matter and on being satisfied in respect of stand taken by D. G. C. allowed the application by order in question without hearing petitioner. The Joint Director of Consolidation relied upon the decision of Supreme Court of India in U. P. Junior Doctors Action Committee v. Dr. B. Seetal Nandwani, AIR 1991 SC 909 for passing-order without affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. He relied on proposition of law that rule of natural justice in respect of affording opportunity of hearing before passing of order do not apply in a case where something is done on the basis of a forged order. Feeling aggrieved by the order of Joint Director of Consolidation, the petitioner filed this petition.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner argued that the order in question was passed during earlier consolidation operation in the year 1960, which was given effect in papers, and if the Joint Director of Consolidation considered that correction of papers in respect of amaldaramad of the I960 is to be dropped out then opportunity of hearing to petitioner before passing impugned order was necessary. The learned standing counsel opposed argument and submitted that as the order is forged, which gave rise to amaldaramad, it was not necessary for Joint Director of Consolidation to provide opportunity of hearing to petitioner before passing the order.
4. Whether an entry be corrected without affording opportunity of hearing to person likely to be affected depends on facts of each case. So far entry made on the basis of a forged order or non-existing order is concerned, such an entry cannot be allowed to continue as soon as the fact comes to light. Any person who has got an amaldaramad on the basis of forged or non-existing order cannot be allowed to raise a grievance. If we examine the order under challenge on said principle then Joint Director of Consolidation was well within his power to correct the entry as soon as he was satisfied that it is on the basis of a forged order and then no opportunity of hearing to petitioner was necessary before passing the order. The application of principles of natural justice cannot be extended to such cases. This finds support from the principle of law enunciated by Supreme Court of India in the case of U. P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee, (AIR 1991 SC 909) (supra). Therefore, till finding recorded by Joint Director of Consolidation that amaldaramad is farzi stands, the amaldaramad cannot be restored in papers.
5. But the matter does not end here. The possibility of an error creeping in by authority concerned cannot be ruled out. The authority passed order without hearing person adversely affected. In such matters possibility cannot be ruled out that the person affected be possessed of sufficient material by which he may be able to show that the order giving rise to entry in dispute is not a forged one. This requires safeguarding of interest of person adversely affected by correction of entry in revenue papers. This interest of affected person can be safeguarded by providing him a post order opportunity of hearing. This will also exclude possibility of error, which may arise due to want of opportunity of hearing and a possible error will also stand rectified in maintenance of correct revenue entries. For said reason a post order opportunity of hearing is necessary to person adversely affected in cases where an entry is expunged or corrected in revenue records and order correcting entry is passed without affording opportunity of hearing to person adversely affected. Correcting an entry to be based on forged or non-existing order, to which person aggrieved raises an objection that the order of correction has been wrongly passed, the aggrieved person is entitled to be heard after correction being done.
6. The aforesaid principle of post order hearing applies to present case. Here, the Joint Director of Consolidation being satisfied that the entry was made on the basis of a forged order directed its correction by making entry of "Deeh Asthan" after expunging name of petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner will be entitled for post order hearing in case he moves Joint Director of Consolidation. In said circumstances, the petitioner's rights stand protected by providing an opportunity of hearing after passing of impugned order. The case of Supreme Court of India in U. P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee, (AIR 1991 SC 909) (supra) does not come in way for allowing such a hearing. The proposition of post order hearing has been accepted by Supreme Court of India earlier by adopting which the procedural requirement of principles of natural justice is also complied with (see Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597). Thus, petitioner has altenative remedy before Joint Director of Consolidation to place those grievances before him, which he has raised in this petition. There the factual aspect will be better dealt with, which cannot be examined before this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
7. For aforesaid reason, the petitioner has a remedy before Joint Director of Consolidation by raising same grounds which he has taken in this writ petition. In case petitioner takes recourse to such a remedy by moving Joint Director of Consolidation then the Joint Director of Consolidation will dispose of the petitioner's objections after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner as well as counsel on behalf of State and while considering the case of parties if Joint Director of Consolidation comes to the conclusion that the order passed by the Consolidation Officer is genuine and not a forged order then he will grant appropriate relief to petitioner in the light of finding recorded by him in that respect.
8. As petitioner has an alternative remedy, the writ petition is dismissed subject to aforesaid observations.
9. Petition dismissed.