JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a revision against the order dated April 15, 1976 passed by Sri G.P. Mital, Commissioner, Faizabad Division, in Revision No. 75/829/Pratabgarh arising from the order dated January 28, 1975 passed by the Additional Collector, Pratapgarh in Case No. 8/1/1 under Section 198(2), U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the record. The opposite parties have not appeared to argue the case in spite of due notice. On one date Sri P.S. Srivastavam Advocate appeared as a counsel for some of the opposite parties but he has not appeared subsequently. 3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the learned Commissioner had no jurisdiction to dismiss the revision himself but could only make a reference to the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel has in this connection referred to Baharuddin v. Gaon Sabha, 1976 R.D. 53, in which a Full Bench of the Board of Revenue has made the following observations:- "And, formerly and finally, is has to be made clear that Section 333-A inserted by the U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act, 1975 does not have any retrospective effect. It came into force on the day it was published in the Gazette, namely August, 19, 1975. We are fortified in making this remark by Section 25 of the Amendment Act of 1975. It reads: 'In Section 331 of the principal Act, for sub-section (3) the following sub-section shall be substituted and be deemed always to have been substituted'. But it been the intent of the Legislature to give Section 333-A any retrospective effect like that gives in the proceeding Section. Section 26 of the Amendment act of 1975 should have read: 'After Section 333 of the principal Act the following sub-section shall be inserted and be deemed always to have been inserted'. This view finds further support from the Full Bench case of Allahabad High Court Har Prasad v. Ram Swarup, AIR 1973 Alld. 390 which pertains to the amendment in Section 115, C.P.C. by Section 6 of U.P. Act XXXVII of 1972." In the present case, the Additional Collector has passed orders on January 28, 1975 and the revision was filed before the Commissioner on February 25, 1975. 390 which pertains to the amendment in Section 115, C.P.C. by Section 6 of U.P. Act XXXVII of 1972." In the present case, the Additional Collector has passed orders on January 28, 1975 and the revision was filed before the Commissioner on February 25, 1975. Thus, in view of the above Full Bench ruling, the learned Commissioner had no jurisdiction to dismiss the revision himself. He should have instead made a reference to the Board of Revenue is in accordance with the Rules 186 to 189 of the Revenue Court Manual. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has also contended that before the Additional Collector exercised suo motu power, he should have given a notice to this effect. In this connection he has referred to D.N. Roy v. State of Bihar, AIR 1971 SC 1045 . In this case pertaining to the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957, a learned Bench of the Supreme Court made the following observations: "We agree that if the exercise of a power can be traced to an existing power even though that power was not purported to have been exercised, under certain circumstances, the exercise of the power can be upheld on the strength of an undisclosed but undoubted power. But in this case the difficulty is that at no steps the Central Government intimated to the appellant that it was exercising its suo motu power. At all stages it purported to act under Rules 54 and 53 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. If the Central Government wanted to exercise suo motu power it should have intimated that fact as well as the grounds on which it proposed to exercise that power to the appellant and gives him an opportunity to show cause against the exercise of suo motu power as well as against the grounds on which it wanted to exercise its power. Quite clearly the Central Government has not given him that opportunity. The High Court thought that on the Central Government has not only intimated to the appellant the grounds mentioned in the application made by the 5th respondent but also the comments of the State Government, the appellant has adequate opportunity to put forward him case. This conclusion in our judgment is untenable. The High Court thought that on the Central Government has not only intimated to the appellant the grounds mentioned in the application made by the 5th respondent but also the comments of the State Government, the appellant has adequate opportunity to put forward him case. This conclusion in our judgment is untenable. At no stage the appellant was informed that the Central Government proposed to exercise its suo motu power and asked him to show cause against the exercise of such a power. Failure of the Central Government to do so, in our opinion, vitiates the impugned order." 5. As the revision has to be heard afresh by the learned Commissioner and thereafter the matter will again come up before the Board of Revenue, I need not at this stage decide the question whether or not the exercise of suo motu powers in the present case was in accordance with the law. The learned Commissioner will no doubt keep the observations of the Supreme Court in view. 6. With the above remark, I here by allow the revision, set aside the impugned order of the learned Commissioner and direct that he shall bear the revision afresh after giving opportunity to the parties and thereafter make a recommendation to the Board of Revenue in accordance with Paras 186 to 189 of the Revenue Court Manual.