JUDGMENT P. Krishen, M. - This Full Bench has been constituted by the Chairman, Board of Revenue, for deciding the following questions:- (1) Whether the restoration application filed by a person who failed to file objection in pursuance of the Proclamation in a mutation case is maintainable, particularly in view of the fact that Proclamation were not served in accordance with the provision of law laid down in Section 197 of Land Revenue Act and paras A-374 of the Revenue Court Manual. (2) What is the effect of non-compliance of the provisions of paras A-374 to A-377 of the Revenue Court Manual read with section 197 of the Land Revenue Act. 2. Sri R.A. Upadhyaya, Advocate, contends that any person whether or not he has file any objection, is entitled to apply for restoration of mutation proceedings on the ground that the Proclamation issued in the proceedings was defective and that the order passed in the proceedings had caused substantial injustice to him, He argues that the word 'Party' used in section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act signifies any person who has ample interest in the land and not necessary a person who has actually filed an objection, because the Proclamation issued. In mutation proceedings is not be served on any one in particular. The learned counsel's next contention is that non-compliance of the provisions of paras A-374 to A-377 of the Revenue Court Manual read with section 197 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act renders the Proclamation void and thereby vitiates the entire proceedings except in a case of the type mentioned in section 198 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act. In support of his contention the learned counsel cites Mst. Khairunnissa v. Syed Tajuddin Hyder 1952 R.D. 121, Tulsi v. Dalan 1975 Luck. L.J. 254 and Dalan v. Tulsi and others 1976 Luck. L.J. 404. 3. Sri B.K. Singh, Advocate, supports the above contentions of Sri Upadhyaya. In support of his contention the learned counsel cites Mst. Khairunnissa v. Syed Tajuddin Hyder 1952 R.D. 121, Tulsi v. Dalan 1975 Luck. L.J. 254 and Dalan v. Tulsi and others 1976 Luck. L.J. 404. 3. Sri B.K. Singh, Advocate, supports the above contentions of Sri Upadhyaya. He argues that the proceedings under section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are those in rem, in which the mutation claim is made against the entire universe and not against some specific party, and that the idea of issue of proclamation in such proceedings is to afford the interested persons an opportunity to come to court and to put up their case, and hence if the Proclamation is defective and a person can convince the court that he was prevented from filing his objection owing to the same, he would be entitled to move for restoration of the proceedings. The learned counsel further argues that the word 'party' used in section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act means any persons affected by the proceedings and convincing the court of the same and not a persons impleaded to the proceedings. He draws out attention to the fact that the actual words used in this section are 'the party against whom judgment has been given' and not 'party to proceedings' which have been used in section 200 of the Act. The last contention of the learned counsel is that the correct position of Law has been enunciated in the Ruling in Mst. Khairunnissa v. Syed Tajuddin Hyder 1952 R.D. 121 and not in Smt. Sona v. Ram Narain and other 1969 R.D. 423 which does not even make any mention of the former Ruling. 4. Sri P.L. Misra, Advocate, supports Sri B.K. Singh's contention regarding the meaning of the word 'party' used in section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, and adds that a person whose name has already been mutated under section 33-A of the U.P. Land Revenue Act would be of an example of a person having ample interest in the land. 5. As against the above, Sri K.N. Misra, Advocate, contends that a mutation order passed in an uncontested case after issue of the Proclamation will not be deemed to be an ex parte order, and hence no restoration application would lie against it. 5. As against the above, Sri K.N. Misra, Advocate, contends that a mutation order passed in an uncontested case after issue of the Proclamation will not be deemed to be an ex parte order, and hence no restoration application would lie against it. He argues that Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act is related to, and is to be read with section 200 of the Act, and that the word 'party' used in section 201 has the same meaning as attached to it in section 200 and cannot be interpreted to mean an outsider. He further argues that even if a Proclamation is defective and invalid, the trial court cannot in any way, suo moto or on the application or any person vacate its order because the same will amount to review to the order for which the trial court is not empowered under the U.P. Land Revenue Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cites Smt. Sona v. Ram Narain and others 1969 R.D. 423 and Smt. Nanki v. Smt. Ram Dei and others 1974 R.D. 140. 6. We have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsels. For the sake of convenience we are taking up first question No. (2) which has been referred to us. Paras A-374 to A-377 of the Revenue Court Manual and Section 197 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act provide the contents of the Proclamation and the procedure for issuing the same. Non-compliance of these provisions of Law makes the Proclamation void and vitiates the entire proceedings. The only exception to this is provided by section 198 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act which says that no Proclamation shall be deemed void on account of any error is the name or designation of any person or in the description of any land referred to therein unless such error has produced substantial injustice. There is no conflict on this point even in the Rulings cited by the learned counsels, and the question is decided accordingly. 7. We now come to the first question referred to us. In this respect two rather conflicting. Rulings have been reported Mst. Khairunnissa v. Tajuddin Hyder 1952 R.D. 121 and Smt. Sona v. Ram Narain and others 1969 R.D. 423. 7. We now come to the first question referred to us. In this respect two rather conflicting. Rulings have been reported Mst. Khairunnissa v. Tajuddin Hyder 1952 R.D. 121 and Smt. Sona v. Ram Narain and others 1969 R.D. 423. The former is a concurrent judgment by the Board in an Appeal saying that a mutation case decided as an uncontested one can be reopened if the Proclamation issued in the case is found to be invalid in terms of the provisions of section 197 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and Rules 376 of the Revenue Court Manual thereby making the order in the case a nullity, and hence an application for reopening the case is maintainable. The latter Ruling, without making any reference any reference to this concurrent judgment, expresses the view that no restoration application would lie against an order passed in an uncontested mutation case on the ground of defective Proclamation because the order was not actually passed ex parte in terms of Section 200 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the person moving such restoration application would not be a party to the proceedings in terms of section 201 of the Act. This Ruling has been made by a single member of the Board. 8. Mutation cases are to be decided after issue of a Proclamation. If the Proclamation is valid in terms of section 197 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act read with Paras A-374 to 377 of the Revenue Court Manual, and yet no objection is filed against the mutation report and the case is decided as an uncontested one, we have no hesitation in saying that the order so passed in the case is not an ex parte order in terms of Section 200 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and hence no application for restoration of the proceedings under Section 201 of the Act will be maintainable. Section 201 is related to section 200 and cannot be read apart from it. The meaning of the word 'party' used' in the two sections is therefore identical and signifies the person impleaded to the proceedings and absenting himself from the court on any specified date. 9. Section 201 is related to section 200 and cannot be read apart from it. The meaning of the word 'party' used' in the two sections is therefore identical and signifies the person impleaded to the proceedings and absenting himself from the court on any specified date. 9. However, it is possible that the Proclamation issued in the mutation case was not a valid one in terms of Section 197 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act read with Paras A-374 to A-377 of the Revenue Court Manual, and no objection was filed against the mutation report in such circumstances and the case was decided as an uncontested one. While deciding question No. 2 referred to us, we have held above that such a Proclamation is void and vitiates the entire proceedings and renders the order passed in such proceedings a nullity. The irregularity committed and the injustice done by passing such an order has to be remedied. The question arises as to one on whose motion and at what stage the same could be done. Admittedly, the U.P. Land Revenue Act does not make any provision for a trial court to review its order, and in the circumstances, advantage cannot be taken of the provisions of section 151, Civil Procedure Code. This is confirmed by the Ruling reported Smt. Nanki v. Smt. Ram dei and others 1974 R.D. 140 which has been made by a Full Bench of the Board it follows the trial court cannot take any suo moto action in remedy of the above mentioned illegality. The point which now arises is whether the doors of Section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act should be closed for undoing the illegality. For this, it is essential to examine the provisions of section 197 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and of Paras A-374 to A-377 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual. Paras A-374 and 375 prescribe the contents of the proclamation. Para A-377 prescribes that a copy of the Proclamation shall be served on the President of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti. Para A-376 prescribes that, in case of mutation by transfer, a copy of the Proclamation shall be served on the transferor and also on his co-sharer, if any. Paras A-374 and 375 prescribe the contents of the proclamation. Para A-377 prescribes that a copy of the Proclamation shall be served on the President of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti. Para A-376 prescribes that, in case of mutation by transfer, a copy of the Proclamation shall be served on the transferor and also on his co-sharer, if any. Thus, except for the President of the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, and, in mutation by transfer, the transferor and his co-sharer, no person specifically is to be served with a notice regarding the mutation proceedings and all and sundry are sought to be informed of the proceedings through publication of the Proclamation as prescribed by section 197. In these circumstances, there is much possibility of mischief through non-compliance of the provisions of section 197 and Paras A-375 to A-377 or insufficient service of notice in compliance of Paras A-376 and A-377 or inadequate publicity in terms of section 197, with the result that persons having ample interest in the land in question do not get informed of the proceedings in time and are deprived of an opportunity to contest the proceedings. Experience shows that, often, such mischief does take place in connivance with the subordinate revenue staff. Would it, then, be just to put the provisions of Section 201 of the U.P.Land Revenue Act beyond the reach of such persons who have ample claim to the land in question but were deprived of an opportunity to contest owing to an invalid proclamation resulting in vitiated Proceedings and in an order which is a nullity in the eye of law? Will it be just and reasonable to limit them to only the provisions of section 210 or 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act? In the latter case, the risk of these persons being treated as third parties and their appeal or revision petition being thrown out on that ground cannot be ruled out. The question is to be examined from this point of view. After all, an order passed in an uncontested mutation case in breach of the provisions of section 197 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and of Paras A-374 to A-377 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual is a nullity. The question is to be examined from this point of view. After all, an order passed in an uncontested mutation case in breach of the provisions of section 197 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act and of Paras A-374 to A-377 of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual is a nullity. If the trial court cannot suo moto remove the illegality and the injustice done through such an order because it is not vested with the power of review under the U.P. Land Revenue Act, it should be possible for the trial court to do so on the motion of a person who can establish his ample interest in the land. The provisions of Law are meant to deliver and to ensure justice and not to harass innocent persons or rightful claimants. The provisions of section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act are to be read in this context. It is evident that an invalid and void Proclamation is likely to prevent a person having ample interest in the land in question from entering contest, and that the order passed in such a mutation case would actually be ex parte of such a person. Hence, we are of the opinion that if, such a case, a person can convince the trial court of his ample interest in the land, the order passed in the case would be passed ex parte of him in terms of Section 200 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, and therefore the restoration application of such a person would be maintainable under section 201 of the Act. After all, such a person is an essential party to the Proceedings and was deprived of an opportunity to contest the same owing to an invalid and void Proclamation. 10. In view of what is said above, our decision in respect of question No. 1 referred to us is that while no restoration application under section 201 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act would lie in an uncontested mutation case in which a perfectly valid Proclamation is issued, such a restoration application by a person convincing the trial court of his ample interest in the land would lie, and shall be entertain able, in an uncontested case in which an invalid and void Proclamation was issued.