JUDGMENT K. P. Singh, J. 1. BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for quashing the judgments of the revenue courts in proceedings under Rule 115-C of the UP ZA and LR Act. 2. BRIEF facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that at the instance of the Gaon Sabha proceedings under Rule 115-C of the UP ZA and LR Act were initiated against the defendant-petitioners. The defendant-petitioners had claimed Sirdari right in the disputed land on the basis of their long possession from before the date of vesting. The Trial Court through its order dated 15-5-68 held that the defendants' possession started from the year 1371 Fasli, hence the trial court ordered ejectment of the petitioners and also fixed damages in respect of the disputed land. 3. AGGRIEVED by the judgment of the trial court the petitioners preferred a revision petition which was recommended to be allowed by the first revisional court through its order dated 27-5-1970. Thereafter the Board of Revenue agreed with the order of the Commissioner and modified the quantum of damages suggested by the first revenue court. Thereafter a restoration application was moved by the petitioners which has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue through its order dated 19-8-77. 4. THE main grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that the Board of Revenue while deciding the revision petition did not hear the petitioners hence the impugned orders are in violation of the principles of natural justice and should be quashed. The learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha has submitted that on the finding of fact recorded by the trial court the defendants-petitioners have no case and it is not a fit case where interference should be made with the impugned orders. 5. IN the order dated 19-8-1977 it has been mentioned that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 189 of the Revenue Court Manual it is open to the Board to dispose of the reference even without giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, as no objection had been filed by the aggrieved party. 6. 5. IN the order dated 19-8-1977 it has been mentioned that in view of the provisions contained in Rule 189 of the Revenue Court Manual it is open to the Board to dispose of the reference even without giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, as no objection had been filed by the aggrieved party. 6. TO me it appears that the learned Member has mis-appreciated and misconstrued the provisions of Rule 189 of the Revenue Court Manual which reads as below :- "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 have been heard." In the present case it appears that the Additional Commissioner has made a recommendation for modifying the order of the Trial court, and the Board of Revenue appears to have accepted the Reference without hearing both the parties to the case. While disposing of the restoration application the Board also appears to be of the view that the reference could be disposed of in the circumstances of the present case without giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, I think that the Board of Revenue has patently erred in dealing with the reference and the restoration application. Rule 189 of the Revenue Court Manual casts a duty upon the revisional court to hear both the parties to the case if the order sought to be revised was to be varied or reversed. Since the order of the Trial court has been modified it was incumbent upon the revenue court to have heard both the parties to the case before passing an order in the reference. The Member Board of Revenue has patently erred in not recalling the order passed by the Board on 24-9-1971. Since the order passed by the Board in the reference is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice, it deserves to be quashed. 7. The Member Board of Revenue has patently erred in not recalling the order passed by the Board on 24-9-1971. Since the order passed by the Board in the reference is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice, it deserves to be quashed. 7. AS regards the contention of the learned counsel for the contesting opposite party that the petitioner has no case on the finding recorded by the Trial court, it is not proper to express any opinion at this stage, hence the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue in reference violates the principles of natural justice. 8. IN the result, the writ petition succeeds and the order passed by the Board on 19-8-1977 and the order dated 24-9-1971 are hereby quashed and the Board is directed to re-hear the parties to the case and thereafter to decide the reference strictly in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.