JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, M. - This is a reference made by Sri by Sri R.K. Garg, Additional Commissioner II, Allahabad Division, Allahabad recommending that revision Nos. 65 and 66 of 1971 filed by Smt. Bhugga and others be allowed and the order dated November 15, 1971 passed by the Sub-Division Officer, Chail, Allahabad be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. Smt. Bhugga and others had moved two applications for mutations based on gift deed. The sub-divisional officer ordered. Mutation on November 8, 1971. On November 12, 1971, Subedar gave an application to the effect that ex parte orders have been obtained without any information and without any notice to him and should be set aside. On November 15, 1971, the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the ex parte order and sent the file to Tahsildar for report. Smt. Bhugga Bibi and others have filed two revisions against this order. 4. The leanred counsel for the revisionist has contended that under section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act no order should be altered without summons being issued to other party. Hence the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer dated November 15, 1971 setting aside his earlier order dated November 8, 1971 without notice of the revisionists was void. The learned counsel for the O.P. has, on the other hand, contended that the order dated November 8, 1971 was itself a nullity and no notice was necessary for setting aside this order Rules regarding mutation of names due to succession or transfer under Sections 34 and 35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are given in Chapter A-XXXVII of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. Under these rules, a proclamation shall be issued notifying that proceedings for mutation of names have been started. Rules A-376 and A-377 provide as follows :- "A-376. Where the report relates to mutation by transfer a copy of the proclamation shall be served free of charge on the transferor and his co-sharers, if any, simultaneously with the issue of proclamation or within 15 days thereof. A-377. A copy of the proclamation shall be served free of charge in each case on the President of the Bhumi Pradandhak Samiti simultaneously with the issue of proclamation or within 15 days thereof." 5. A-377. A copy of the proclamation shall be served free of charge in each case on the President of the Bhumi Pradandhak Samiti simultaneously with the issue of proclamation or within 15 days thereof." 5. The learned counsel for the revisionists has rightly pointed out that in the present case, the copy of the proclamation was not served on the co-sharers nor was it served on the President of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti. Compliance of rule A-376 and A-377 is mandatory and the proclamation is vitiated on account of non-compliance of these rules. It has been held in Khairunnisan v. Tajuddin Haider, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 121 that without a valid proclamation a mutation order passed must be held to be a nullity. No notice to any parties has been served to set aside an order which means a nullity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 340. "It is a fundamental principle that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of the parties." 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party has also contended that the revisionists had claimed mutation on the basis of a gift-deed dated June 18, 1971. However, in civil suit No. 632/71, in which both the parties to the present proceedings were also parties, the Munsif Allahabad has cancelled this gift-deed. The appeal filed by the present revisionists against the Munsif's order has been dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad, by his judgment dated September 5, 1974. Copies of both these judgments have been filed. The learned counsel for the revisionists admits these judgments having been passed against his client but has mentioned that a second appeal No. 904 of 1975 has been filed in the High Court.against the judgment of the Additional District Judge. Copies of both these judgments have been filed. The learned counsel for the revisionists admits these judgments having been passed against his client but has mentioned that a second appeal No. 904 of 1975 has been filed in the High Court.against the judgment of the Additional District Judge. As the revisionists do not claim to have obtained a stay order from the High Court, they are not entitled to say that the above judgments shall remain inoperative. 7. The result is that I find that the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer dated November 8, 1970 was a nullity and that he did not commit any error of law in exercising his jurisdiction by passing the order dated November 15, 1971. The revisions, therefore, fail and I, hereby, dismiss them. The reference made by the learned Additional Commissioner is discharged. This order shall govern reference Nos. 394 and 391 (L.R.) of 1971-72.