JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision filed by Bhagwati Singh against the order dated December 15, 1970 passed by the Tahsildar, Utraula, district Gonda in Case No. 2201/555 under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act may be allowed and the impugned order set aside. 2. I have heard the revisionist in person and the District Government Counsel on behalf of the opposite party and have gone through the record. 3. On the report of the Lekhpal that the revisionist had unlawfully encroached upon plots Nos. 2, 3, 4, 87, 124, 339, 425 and 428 which were Gaon Sabha property in 1377 Fasli, notice in Z.A. Form 49-A was issued by the Tahsildar which was personally served on the revisionist. He appeared and filed a written statement to the effect that Srimati Parvati, widow of Yuvraj Singh was the tenure-holder of the land in dispute. She was succeeded by Hira Singh, but the revisionist acquired Sirdari rights in the land by virtue of continuous cultivatory possession from the life time of Srimati Parvati. The revisionist claimed that the land never vested in the Gaon Samaj. The learned Tahsildar held that the revisionist was a trespasser on Gaon Sabha land and ordered his ejectment. 4. Proceedings under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act even though they are summary proceedings are judicial in nature. The proper judicial procedure including giving opportunity to both parties to produce their evidence and to record the oral evidence must be followed. There seems to be a tendency among certain Courts to decide these proceedings in a casual and perfunctory manner by merely looking at the records and without bothering to record any oral evidence. This practice is quite contrary to law and is highly objectionable. In the present case, the learned Tahsildar did not provide any opportunity to the Gaon Sabha to produce its oral and documentary evidence. The learned Tahsildar also did not record any oral evidence of the revisionist. It is correct that the revisionist did not produce any evidence to show that after the death of Srimati Parvati, Hari Singh succeeded to the land nor did he produce any evidence of his acquiring Sirdari title by continuous adverse possession. It appears that the Naib Tahsildar. The learned Tahsildar also did not record any oral evidence of the revisionist. It is correct that the revisionist did not produce any evidence to show that after the death of Srimati Parvati, Hari Singh succeeded to the land nor did he produce any evidence of his acquiring Sirdari title by continuous adverse possession. It appears that the Naib Tahsildar. Utraula by his order dated July 27, 1967 had held that Srimati Parvati had died heirless and that her land shall vest in the Gaon Samaj, but the Deputy Commissioner, Gonda referred the case to the Board of Revenue with the recommendation that the order of the Naib Tahsildar be set aside and the case be remanded for fresh disposal according to law. There is nothing on the record to show what orders were passed by the Board of Revenue in that case or what was the final outcome of the case after the remand. In the absence of this, it cannot be adjudged whether or not the land vested in the Gaon Sabha. The extract from the Khatauni of 1377 Fasli shows that the land is Parti Jadid and this does raise a presumption that the land vested in the Gaon Sabha. However, the Gaon Sabha should have been given opportunity to produce corroboratory oral and documentary evidence. The revisionist of course did not produce any oral or documentary evidence to support his claim. However, as the learned Tahsildar has not followed the prescribed judicial procedure, its order cannot be sustained. The recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner that a bona fide question of title is involved is entirely against the record and is based upon surmises and conjectures. The practice of certain Additional Commissioners to record the recommendation that a bona fide question is involved in proceedings under Section 122-B without looking into the record is quite unwarranted by law. 5. The result is that I hereby allow the revision, set aside the order of the learned Tahsildar and remand the case to him for fresh disposal in accordance with law after recording evidence of both the parties.