JUDGMENT 1. This is a review petition against the Board's order, dated April 30, 1973, passed in Reference No. 1473 of 1971-72/district Muzaffarnagar. 2. It appears that a notice in Z.A. Form No. 49-Ka was issued to Amar Singh, stating that he wanted to take possession on 'Rasta' i.e. plot No. 496, and 22 Mango trees, and that he had cut one mango tree, and caused a damage of Rs. 330/- to the Gaon Sabha. On receipt of notice, Amar Singh filed objection, stating that the disputed trees were planted by his ancestors, that the standing trees were not on the Rasta, but near it, and that a bona fide dispute of title was involved. The trial court ordered the ejectment of the revisionist, and awarded Rs. 300/- as damages. Feeling aggrieved by this order, Amar Singh filed a revision before the learned Additional Commissioner, who did not find any evidence that the trees belonged to the Gaon Sabha, or from where one of the trees was cut. On the other hand he found that there was a resolution of the Land Management Committee on the file, showing that the trees belonged to the revisionist. Accordingly, he made a reference to the Board, recommending that the revision may be allowed, and the order of the trial court quashed. No objection was filed against this recommendation. The learned member in his order dated April 30, 1973, held that the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner was based on a reappraisal of the evidence, which was outside the scope of Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, and since there was no error of jurisdiction, or any illegality or material irregularity in the order of the trial court the learned member, dismissed the revision. Amar Singh has filed the instant review petition against the above order of the Board. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist, and D.G.C. (R), The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that a bona fide dispute of title being involved in the case, the trial court acted illegally in ordering the ejectment of the revisionist in these proceedings, which are summary in nature. He stated that the trial court decided the case against the facts on record, and went merely on conjectures, and its finding are entirely incorrect. He stated that the trial court decided the case against the facts on record, and went merely on conjectures, and its finding are entirely incorrect. He said that Shri Chand was not the Member of the Land Management Committee in 1962, and he never stated that the trees in question were the property of the Gaon Sabha. He said that in the meeting of the Land Management Committee, dated February 28, 1962, one of the members proposed that the mango trees standing on Inchora Wala Rasta be put to auction but it was held unanimously that those trees had been planted by father and grand father of Amar Singh and they were in possession thereof all along, and therefore, there was no question of their auction. He stated that the reports, dated September 20, 1968, of the Naib Tahsildar, which was in favour of the revisionist, was not taken into consideration by the trial court. He submitted that the learned Additional Commissioner after considering the evidence on record, had recommended that the revision be allowed, and trial court's order set aside, but the Board, even when no objection was filed by the Gaon Sabha against this recommendation, and without affording the revisionist an opportunity of being heard, disagreed with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. He submitted that the Board has wide powers in review and may exercise its inherent powers in the interest of justice. He cited 1953 R.D. page 33, in which the view expressed in 1950 R.D. page 42 was followed. In 1950 case, it was held as follows:- "An application under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code, is entertain able when there is any error apparent on the face of the record, but Section 273 U.P. Tenancy Act gives an unlimited power of review to the Board both on its own motion or on the application of any party to the case. Even the restriction in Order 47, Rule 9, C.P.C. that a review of review is not permissible does not apply to the Board within the meaning and spirit of Section 273". He urged that the order of the trial court should be quashed. 4. Even the restriction in Order 47, Rule 9, C.P.C. that a review of review is not permissible does not apply to the Board within the meaning and spirit of Section 273". He urged that the order of the trial court should be quashed. 4. The learned D.G.C. (R) appearing on behalf of the Gaon Sabha, submitted in reply that the finding recorded by the trial court that the petitioner had trespassed on Gaon Sabha land, was based on consideration of evidence on record, and could not be challenged in revision much less in review. He said that during the course of consolidation operations the petitioner did not file any objection regarding the valuation of the trees, and now it does not lie with him to allege that the trees belong to him. He argued that even if no objection was filed against the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, the Board was competent to look into the record of the case and arrive at its own conclusions. He urged that there is no error or mistake apparent on the face of the record in the Board's order to justify its review. According to him even a mistake of law would not warrant an interference in review. 5. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties and have perused the record of the case. Rule 339(1) of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules lays down that "Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under the Act, the provisions of Section 273 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, shall apply to the suits and proceedings specified in Schedule II of the Act and appeals, revisions and reviews arising therefrom". There is no express provision in or under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act regarding review petitions. The provisions of section 273 of the U.P. Tenancy Act which provides for a review would govern the cases arising out of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Section 273 confers unfettered and unrestricted powers on the Board to review its order either on its own motion or on the application of any party. It is no doubt true that the wide and unlimited powers cannot be exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner, but it does not mean that the Board cannot correct errors in review. 6. Section 273 confers unfettered and unrestricted powers on the Board to review its order either on its own motion or on the application of any party. It is no doubt true that the wide and unlimited powers cannot be exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner, but it does not mean that the Board cannot correct errors in review. 6. A perusal of the record reveals that the trial court has gone on assumptions and surmises and its findings are not based on a correct appreciation of the evidence on record. They are almost perverse. The Lekhpal's testimony did not help the Gaon Sabha in the present case. He had been in this circle for one year only, he did not see the Sampati Register of the Gaon Sabha, nor did he enquire from the Pradhan about the trees, and could not say whether the trees belonged to Gaon Sabha or not. The resolution, dated February 28, 1962 proved that the members of the Land Management Committee were conscious of the fact that the trees standing on the land were planted by the ancestors of the revisionist, and that they had all along been in possession. The trial court brushed aside the report of the Naib Tahsildar also which supported the claim of the revisionist. On the contrary it was swayed by the extraneous fact of the Pradhan having been removed from office in connection with resolution, dated February 28, 1962, regarding which removal there is nothing on record ; on the other hand the witnesses of the petitioner fully corroborated his version. 7. As regards the argument of the learned D.G.C. (R) that the revisionist did not file any objection during consolidation proceedings regarding the valuation of the trees, there is nothing on record to bear it out, In a way, this supports the version of the revisionist that the trees were his for if they had been delivered to the Gaon Sabha the revisionist would have been given some compensation, about which there is no evidence. 8. From the evidence on record, neither has it been proved that the trees are of the Gaon Sabha nor that the revisionist has in fact made any encroachment on the Rasta (it has already been mentioned above that in the preliminary report the lekhpal had merely mentioned that the revisionist wanted to encroach upon the Rasta). 8. From the evidence on record, neither has it been proved that the trees are of the Gaon Sabha nor that the revisionist has in fact made any encroachment on the Rasta (it has already been mentioned above that in the preliminary report the lekhpal had merely mentioned that the revisionist wanted to encroach upon the Rasta). Hence, there was no cause of action and the trial court acted illegally in ordering the ejectment of the revisionist. 9. While the view taken by the Board in its order dated April 30, 1973 is generally sound so far as it goes but every case has to be decided on its merits. In the instant case, no objection was filed on behalf of the Gaon Sabha against the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner, which was based on the same facts on which the trial court had ordered the ejectment of the revisionist and had imposed damages on him. The appreciation of the trial court was no appreciation at all, and the Additional Commissioner made a fuller and deeper scrutiny of the same. Even if it be assumed that re-appreciation of evidence does not fall within the purview or scope of Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, it will be a mockery of justice if material evidence is ignored or distorted finding delivered, We fully agree with the appreciation of the Additional Commissioner that there was no evidence in support of the report made by the lekhpai and there was no basis for the trial court for giving any finding against the revisionist. We further agree with his observation that the report was absurd, and the order of the trial court is absolutely illegal. In our view, it was not only illegal, but also suffered from material irregularity in so far as a wholly unwarranted finding was given by the trial court. 10. In the result, we consider this a very fit case in which the Board should exercise its inherent power of review, and review the orders of lower court. We allow the review petition and quash the entire proceedings. Costs on parties.