JUDGMENT R.P. Gupta, Member - This review petition is filed by Smt. Kewal Patti against Gaon Sabha, Kanpa. Smt. Kewal Patti filed Revision No. 1054 in the court of Commissioner, Faizabad against the order dated March 13, 1978 passed by S.D.O., Musafirkhana, district Sultanpur in the mutation case based on a least granted by Gaon Sabha. This revision was referred on September 27, 1978 by Sri J.N. Pradhan, Commissioner, Faizabad Division to the Board of Revenue U.P. Lucknow with the recommendation that the order of the trial court be set aside and the name of the revisionist be mutated over the land in suit. 30 days time was allowed to the aggrieved party for filing objection under rule 188(2) of U.P. Revenue Court Manual but no objection was filed against the recommendation. This reference was heard in Chamber by Sri S.K. Sarkar, Member who has since retired. Sri S.K. Sarkar, Member decided the reference without issuing notices to the parties. He did not agree with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner and directed that mutation of the revisionist's name should not be done. Against this order the present review petition was filed by Smt. Kewal Patti on July 26, 1979. 2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the reference should not have been rejected in Chamber without notice to the parties and without giving the Revisionist an opportunity of being heard as the recommendation of the Commissioner was in favour of the Revisionist and there was no occasion for him to file objection. Gaon Sabha, who was aggrieved party by the recommendation, could have filed the objection against the recommendation but it did not file any objection and thus accepted recommendation as correct. Thus the main question to be decided by us is whether it is necessary for the Board to hoar the parties in case where no objection is filed by the aggrieved party against the recommendation made by the Commissioner, if the Board is not agreeing with the recommendation which is in favour of the revisionist. 3. Rule 189 of the Revenue Court Manual provides procedure to be followed by the Board in dealing with the reference. It is as under: - "189. Procedure before the Board.... 3. Rule 189 of the Revenue Court Manual provides procedure to be followed by the Board in dealing with the reference. It is as under: - "189. Procedure before the Board.... On receiving an application under Rule 186 or a recommendation under Rule 187 or 188 and after considering the objection, if any, made under sub-rule (2) of Rule 188 and hearing the parties, if necessary, the Board shall pass such orders as they may consider proper: Provided that, save where an aggrieved party has failed to file objection in accordance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 188, the order sought to be revised shall not, be varied or reversed unless both the parties to the case hove been heard." 4. In Baharuddin v. Gaon Sabha, 1976 R.D. 53 (F.B.) of the Board of Revenue consisting of 5 Members considered paras 186 to 190 of the Revenue Court Manual and held at page 76 that these paras are meant to provide an occasion for hearing only in those cases in which a chance is given to the aggrieved party of file an objection but it fails to do so. Failure to file objection does not mean that his case will go by default. It only means that he has acquiesced in the order of Commissioner or Additional Commissioner and has not considered it necessary or worthwhile to file an objection so that he may have a chance of being heard again. In such cases it should rot be necessary for the Board to call for the objector who could have objected but has not done so. This power of getting a second hearing will be admissible to the aggrieved party only if it files an objection; otherwise the Board will be fully within its power to pass an order in chamber". In this case this aspect of the case was not considered whether in uncontested reference i.e. references where aggrieved party filed no objection, it is necessary to hear the Revisionist in whose favour recommendation was made, if the Member, hearing the references in Chamber without notice to the parties, is not agreeing with the recommendation. 5. In Abdul Qayum v. Board of Revenue, 1974 R.D. 31 a similar matter came before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition. The Hon'ble Mr. 5. In Abdul Qayum v. Board of Revenue, 1974 R.D. 31 a similar matter came before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.D. Ojha observed as under: - "The recommendation made by the Commissioner was to allow the revision filed by the petitioners. An objection, if at all, could have been filed only by the contesting respondents. The petitioners were not required to file any objection in as much as the recommendation was in their favour. By refusing to accept the recommendation made by the Commissioner and dismissing the revision the Board was passing an order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners even though no objection had been filed by the contesting respondents. As such even though the provision of paragraph 189 may not, be strictly applicable, the principle that no order prejudicial to the interest of a party shall be passed without hearing him, which is a well recognised principle of natural justice, was clearly attracted and the Board of Revenue should have given an opportunity to the petitioners of hearing before dismissing the revisions." 6. These observations of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court are quite correct and we see no reason to differ. In fact the law as declared by the Allahabad High Court is binding on the Board of Revenue. In East India Commercial Co. v. Collector of Customs, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 1895, it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "An administrative Tribunal cannot ignore the law declared by the highest Court in the State. Taking into consideration the provisions of Arts. 215, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, it would be anomalous to suggest that a Tribunal over which the High Court has superintendence can ignore the law declared by that, court and start proceedings in direct violation of it. If a Tribunal can do so, all the subordinate courts can equally do so, for there is no specific provision, just like in the case of Supreme Court, making the law declared by the High Court, binding on subordinate Courts. If a Tribunal can do so, all the subordinate courts can equally do so, for there is no specific provision, just like in the case of Supreme Court, making the law declared by the High Court, binding on subordinate Courts. It is implicit in the power of supervision conferred on a superior Tribunal that all the Tribunals subject to its supervision should conform to the law laid down by it, such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working; otherwise, there would be confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer". 7. In State of Kerala v. K.T. Shadauli, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1627 it was observed that: - "One of the rule which constitutes a part of the principles of natural justice is the rule of audi alterm partem which requires that no man should be condemned unheard. It is indeed a requirement or the duty to act fairly which lies on all quasi judicial authorities and this duty has been extended also to the authorities holding administrative enquiries involving civil consequences or affecting rights of parties." 8. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 597. The Supreme Court observed as follows: - "Although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice if the common law will supply the omission of the legislature. The principle of audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, is part of the rules of natural justice. Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over this years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. The inquiry must, always be; does fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be heard should be given to the poison affected?....... There can be no distinction between a quasi judicial function and an administrative function to this purpose........ The law must now be taken to bowel settled that even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice mint be held to be applicable." 9. Thus it is clear that rule of natural justice demands that no one should be condemned unheard. In the present case before us the recommendation was in favour of the revisionist. Thus it is clear that rule of natural justice demands that no one should be condemned unheard. In the present case before us the recommendation was in favour of the revisionist. He was not an aggrieved party by the reference order made by the Commissioner in his favour. He was not required to file any objection against the order as it was in his favour. Aggrieved party was Gaon Sabha which filed no objection against the recommendation of the Commissioner. By not filing the objection it rather submitted to the recommendation. In such circumstances it was necessary to hear the revisionist, if Member was not agreeing with the recommendation of the Commissioner. Such cases should not be decided in Chamber without notice to the parties. In such cases notices should be issued to the parties for regular hearing of the reference. 10. Now the question is whether it is an error apparent on the face of record that the notice was not issued and the reference was decided in Chamber against revisionist without hearing him, though the recommendation was in his favour. As already observed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, in Gokul Prasad v. Board of Revenue, 1974 R.J. 31 in such a case it was necessary to hear the revisionist before passing any order against him. It is nothing but an error apparent on the face of the record that the present reference was decided without notice to the revisionist. Thus it is a clearcut case of error apparent on the face of the record and the order in question is liable to be set aside. 11. The result is that the present review petition is allowed and the order passed by Sri S.K. Sarkar, Member on May 31, 1979 is set aside. Let reference in question be listed before the Member concerned for hearing it on merit after notices to the parties.