LUCKNOW, Dec. 28 -- Taking strong exception to the removal of a landowner's name from revenue records and the demolition of a structure without granting an opportunity of hearing, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has ordered restoration of the land to the petitioner and imposed a cost of Rs.20 lakh on the state government. The court also directed rectification of revenue records and ordered that possession of the disputed land be handed back to the petitioner. The cost amount is to be paid to the petitioner within two months, the court said. A single bench of Justice Alok Mathur passed the order on December 18 on a petition filed by Savitri Sonkar, who had challenged the actions of revenue authorities in relation to her land in Devnandanpur village of Rae Bareli district. Setting aside the order passed by the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) concerned, the court termed the entire exercise illegal and arbitrary, holding that the petitioner was deprived of her property without due process of law. The court further ordered an inquiry into the role of the revenue officials, to be conducted by an officer of the additional chief secretary level. The state government has been directed to identify the officials responsible, initiate appropriate action against them and recover the compensation amount from the erring officers. According to the petitioner, the land belonged to her and her name was duly recorded in the revenue records. Her counsel submitted that the SDM, without issuing any notice or granting a hearing, initiated proceedings under Section 38 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code. On February 10, the petitioner's name was removed from the revenue records and the land was declared gram sabha land. Subsequently, on March 24, the structure standing on the land was demolished and the property was handed over to the GST department, the petition stated. In its order, the court observed that the record-correction proceedings under Section 38 were unsustainable, particularly as a 1975 decree relating to the disputed land already existed. In such circumstances, invoking Section 38 was impermissible, the court clarified. The court also held that the demolition was carried out neither in accordance with Section 67 of the UP Revenue Code nor in compliance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. Observing that mere quashing of the illegal orders would not amount to complete justice, as the petitioner had suffered substantial damage to her property, the court imposed exemplary costs of Rs.20 lakh on the state government. MANOJ KUMAR SINGH...