JUDGMENT S. Mubarak Hasan, Member. - This is a Revision petition against the order dated August 27, 1973 passed by Tahsildar, Basti in a case under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. Lekhpal reported that the petitioner had taken unlawful possession over the land in dispute which belonged to the Gaon Sabha. Petitioner filed objection alleging that he belonged to backward classes and that the land was settled with him by the Pradhan. 3. After taking evidence the trial court dropped the proceedings against the petitioner on June 9, 1972. 4. On July 9, 1973, the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha filed an application alleging that no notice was issued to the Land Management Committee and that the Lekhpal had colluded with the petitioner. He prayed that the order dated June 3, 1973 be reviewed and it may be set aside. 5. On August 27, 1973, the trial court set aside the order dated June 9, 1973 and directed that the case should proceed. 6. On May 16, 1974, the Additional Commissioner recommended that the revision be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 122-B(4) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act provides that the decision of the Collector under sub-section (2) of Section 122-B shall subject to the result of a suit by the aggrieved party before a court of competent jurisdiction be final and conclusive. He further argued that the remedy of the aggrieved party was by way of regular suit. He contended that the review application was not maintainable and that the court had no jurisdiction to review the order dated June 9, 1973. He placed reliance on the case Balak Ram v. Gaon Samaj, 1960 R.D. 210 in which it was held that:- "An order starting fresh proceedings under Section 115-D amounts to a review of the previous order which the Tahsildar had no authority to do." Lastly, he argued that the trial court exercised jurisdiction illegally in reviewing the order dated June 9, 1973. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that notice under Z.A. form 49-A had been issued to the petitioner and he contested the notice and filed objection. 8. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that notice under Z.A. form 49-A had been issued to the petitioner and he contested the notice and filed objection. He contended that, under the circumstances, notice should have been issued to the L.M.C. as contemplated under Rule 115-E(2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rule but no notice was given to it and an ex-parte order was passed against it. He further argued that the Pradhan had right to apply for setting aside the ex-parte order dated June 9, 1973. He further argued that the application filed by the Pradhan was not a review application but it was an application for setting aside the ex-parte order. He further argued that the trial court has given a finding of fact that fraud was committed in court. He contended that this finding of fact cannot be assailed. Lastly, he argued that in view of the above circumstances the order dated August 27, 1973 passed by the trial court is correct and does not call for any interference in revision. 9. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels of the parties and have perused the record. The petitioner had filed objection against the notice under Z.A. form 49-A. Under the circumstances it was necessary to give notice to the L.M.C. under rule 115-E(2) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules but no notice was given to it. Non-compliance of this rule was fatal. The order dated June 9, 1973 was in fact an ex-parte order and the Pradhan had right to move an application for setting aside the same. His application dated July 9, 1973 in that regard was not a review application. The trial court has given a finding of fact that fraud was practised on court. This finding of fact cannot be assailed. The present case was not covered under Section 122-B(4) of the Z.A. Act because the L.M.C. was not a party to the case. Considering the circumstances discussed above the trial court rightly set aside the order dated May 9, 1973. There is no jurisdictional error in the order dated August 27, 1973 passed by the trial court. Revision is, accordingly, dismissed.