JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sir S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision petition filed by Sardar Singh against the order dated January 4, 1971 passed by the Tahsildar, Utraula, district Gonda in Case No. 4145/556 under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be allowed and the order of the trial court set aside. 2. I have heard the revisionist in person and the District Government Counsel on behalf of the opposite parties and have gone through the record. 3. On the report of the Lekhpal that the revisionist had made encroachment upon certain plots belonging to the Gaon Sabha in 1366 Fasli, notice in Z.A. Form 49-A was issued by the Tahsildar, Utraula, district Gonda on December 15, 1969. The revisionist in his written statement claimed that he had been in possession of the land from before abolition of Zamindari and had acquired Sirdari rights. He also claimed that the land had never vested in the Gaon Sabha and was not the Gaon Sabha property. The trial court after perusing the record held that the land vested in the Gaon Sabha in 1367 Fasli and ordered the ejectment of the revisionist as a trespasser. 4. A perusal of the trial court's record shows that the learned Tahsildar neither bothered to record any evidence on behalf of the Gaon Sabha nor gave any opportunity to the revisionist to produce his evidence. He has decided the case in a cavalier fashion merely after perusing the extracts of revenue records. In the revenue records, however, the name of one Avadh Behari is recorded as tenant-in-chief till 1366 Fasli. The learned Tahsildar has not considered who this Avadh Behari was and what has happened to this tenure rights. In 1359 Fasli the name of this Avadh Behari is recorded as tenant-in-chief and the name of Ram Kala Brahmin is recorded as Kabiz. 5. The practice of certain revenue courts to decide cases under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act without recording oral evidence is quite contrary to law and is highly objectionable. It is true that proceedings under Section 122-B are summary proceedings, but all the same they are quasi-judicial proceedings and the judicial procedure as prescribed by the law has to be followed. It is true that proceedings under Section 122-B are summary proceedings, but all the same they are quasi-judicial proceedings and the judicial procedure as prescribed by the law has to be followed. It is incumbent for the trial court to give opportunity to both parties, the Gaon Sabha and the alleged trespasser to produce their oral evidence. Failure to do so amounts to an illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction and vitiate the entire proceedings. 6. I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order of the learned Tahsildar. The case is remanded back for proceeding in accordance with law after giving the opportunity to both the sides to produce their evidence.