ORDER Shri R. K. Anand F. C—Petitioner, Santokh Singh is present. Respondents, Santosh Kumar and others are not present. On the last date of hearing, Shri D. P. Gupta, counsel for the respondents was present and it was in his knowledge that this case would be taken up for hearing today. Absence of the respondents from the court without any explanation indicates that they are not interested in contesting the revision potition, otherwise, either they or their counsel would have been present in the court today. In case, they were unable to appear in person, they would have sent a request for an adjournment. Since they are absent without any explanation of excuse, they are proceeded ex parte. 2. This revision petition has been recommended by the Collector, Paonta Sahib Sub-Division, vide his order, dated 22-1-1983, for acceptance. He has stated that the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, has allowed the application of the respondents for vacation of ex parte order without assigning any reason. Perusal of the court record reveals that Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, on 20-12-1980 ordered that ex parte proceedings betaken against the present respondents as they were absent on that date although they had been appearing in the court on previous dates of hearing. This order was set aside on 21-2-1981 by the Assistant Collector, llnd Grade, without assigning any reason. The subsequent order, dated 21-2-1981 of the Revenue Officer is tantamount to a review of his earlier order of 20-12-1980. For review, provisions of section 16 of H. P. Land Revenue Act are relevant and are required to be followed by a Revenue Officer. According to these provisions a Revenue Officer of class below that of Collector has to obtain the sanction of the Revenue Officer to whose control he is immediately subject in case he proposes to review the order passed by him or his predecessor in office. In this case, the order, dated 20-12-1980 was passed by him and sanction of the Sub-Divisional Collector was essential before the order could be reviewed. Since the provisions of section 16 of the H. P. Land Revenue Act were not complied with, the recommendation made by the Sub-Divisional Collector, Paonta Sahib, is accepted and the order, dated 21-2-1981 passed by the Assistant Collector, Ilnd Grade, Paonta Sahib, is quashed. The case is remanded to him for disposal in accordance with law. Order accordingly.-