ORDER P.R. Vyas Bhiman, IAS, Chairman - This reference in a case of mutation has been made by the Additional Commissioner in the following circumstances. The succession opened on the death of one Munesher son of Balbhadra. O.Ps. 1 and 2 claimed on the basis of an unregistered will. The case was uncontested and mutation was ordered in February, 1980. The present revisionist filed an appeal before the S.D.O. which was dismissed. The present revisionist thereafter took up the matter before the Additional Commissioner who has made the present reference in which he has asked for setting aside the orders of die courts below and remanding the case back to the trial court. 2. The Additional Commissioner has made his recommendation because he has found that the proceedings before the trial court, especially the issue of the proclamation, raised great suspicion in his mind about their having been duly done. He has found no proper service on the Chairman of the L.M.C. concerned but deliberately service has been shown on the Chairman of a different Gaon Sabha. He also has found cutting, over-writing etc. in the proclamation. Apart from this he has also made some observation about the proof adduced by the O.Ps. for the execution of the will and he has also commented on the consolidation of three cases by the trial court itself without the orders of the next superior court. 3. In arguments the main point argued was whether an appeal at all lay against an uncontested proceeding and if a non-maintainable appeal was dismissed, whether that appellate court's order can be questioned in revision. This was the argument of learned counsel for the O.Ps. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that though the appeal was not maintainable there is no bar on the jurisdiction conferred by Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act on the Commissioner or on the Board. 4. I have gone through the record of the case and given consideration to the arguments above. Even though the appellate order does state that the Proclamation was properly made, I find that the observations of the Addl. Commissioner are in accordance with the record and it has to be accepted that the proclamation was not properly made and there were several suspicious circumstances surrounding it. Even though the appellate order does state that the Proclamation was properly made, I find that the observations of the Addl. Commissioner are in accordance with the record and it has to be accepted that the proclamation was not properly made and there were several suspicious circumstances surrounding it. There is also no doubt that in such cases the remedy available to the revisionist was to apply to the trial court for reopening the case instead of going in appeal. The main question is whether in such circumstances the jurisdiction under Section 218 of the Act can be exercised or not. No case law bearing exactly on this point has been cited by any party. So we have to turn to the Section itself to decide the issue. Section 218 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act reads as follows: "The Commissioner, the Additional Commissioner, the Collector, the Record Officer or the Settlement Officer may call for and examine the record of any case decided or proceedings held by any officer subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed and as to the regularity of proceedings, and if he is of opinion that the proceeding taken or order passed by such subordinate officer should be varied, cancelled or reversed, he shall refer the case with his opinion thereon for the orders of the Board and the Board shall pass such orders as it thinks fit." 5. Two things emerge from the section-one is that the Commissioner or the Addl. Commissioner etc. have the power to call for and examine the record for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the order passed (emphasis supplied): the other is that on reference to the Board the Board has the power to pass such orders as it thinks fit. In the present instance the Addl. Commissioner has been moved by Smt. Basanta and thereupon the record had been called for. On examining it the Additional Commissioner has come to the conclusion not only that the orders passed by the lower courts are improper but also the proceedings in this case themselves are irregular and shrouded in suspicious circumstances. It is, therefore, clear that he has got the jurisdiction to make the reference. On examining it the Additional Commissioner has come to the conclusion not only that the orders passed by the lower courts are improper but also the proceedings in this case themselves are irregular and shrouded in suspicious circumstances. It is, therefore, clear that he has got the jurisdiction to make the reference. It should be borne in mind that powers under Section 218 of the Act, though they are meant to be exercised sparingly, are certainly available when the judicial conscience of the superior court is outraged. The Addl. Commissioner has given enough circumstances to show that the original uncontested proceedings were highly irregular, to say the least. Therefore, I hold that reference in such circumstances is within the jurisdiction of the referring Court. Consequently, once the case has come to the notice of the Board, the Board is free to pass such orders as will serve the ends of justice. It may be noticed in passing that the O.Ps. who claim on the basis of the will are the sons of a cousin of the deceased and do not come in the normal line of succession. The revisionist claims to be the widow of a pre-deceased son but if one would go by the recital in the unregistered will no mention of such a person can be found. The likelihood that in actuality the deceased died heirless and intestate cannot thus be ruled out. In these circumstances while I accept the reference and set aside the orders of the lower Courts, I direct the case shall be remanded to the trial Court which shall issue fresh notice to the Chairman of the concerned Gaon Sabha in which the land is situated The identified parties namely, the present revisionist and present O.Ps. are directed to appear before the trial Court on 27-6-1986.