JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a revision brought against the order of the Addl. Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 5-2-1982 through which the revision filed against the order of the S.D.O. Jahsath dated 12-8-1981 was dismissed. 2. The facts of the case in a nut shell are that a patta of the disputed land was executed by the L.M.C. in favour of opposite party no. 1 Asharam. He submitted an application to the S.D.O, under Section 198-A of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act to evict the revisionist Nathu and Laxman from the land since they were in occupation of the same. The S.D.O. issued a notice to the revisionist upon which they filed an objection that they have been continuing in possession over the land from prior to 30-6-1975 and being Harijan by caste have perfected their title under Section 122-E (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and are, therefore, not liable to ejectment. They further alleged that a proceeding under Section 122-B had been initiated against them earlier which was dismissed by the Tahsildar by his order dated 10-6-1976 and the revisionists were, held to have accrued the benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and were held to be sirdars. The learned S.D.O. rejected the objection and passed an order for the ejectment of the revisionist and for delivery of possession to the pattedar Asharam. A revision was filed against that order which was also dismissed, hence this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 4. A copy of the order of the Tahsildar dated 10-6-1976 is on record which clearly shows that the revisionist are in continuous possession from prior to 30-6-1975 and that is why the proceeding under Section 122-B (4-F) was dropped and they were held to be sirdars. In the instant case it was duty of the learned S.D.O. to have determined the question of the title of the revisionist clearly and then to have arrived at a finding whether they could be ejected or not. 5. A perusal of the provision of Section 198-A of the Z.A. & L.R. Act shows that it is a judicial proceeding and the trial court has to dispose of the matter judiciously by applying the entire procedure of a judicial case. 5. A perusal of the provision of Section 198-A of the Z.A. & L.R. Act shows that it is a judicial proceeding and the trial court has to dispose of the matter judiciously by applying the entire procedure of a judicial case. In the present case the learned S.D.O. did not follow the required judicial procedure and without affording any opportunity to the revisionist to lead or rebut evidence passed summary order which is against spirit of law. The procedure adopted by him was, therefore, not lawful, hence his order deserved to be quashed and it is a fit case where the record should be sent back to the S.D.O. to decide the case in a judicial way after hearing both the parties. 6. In view of the above discussion the revision is allowed and the orders passed by both the courts below are set aside. The case is remanded back to the S.D.O. to decide the application of Asharam afresh in accordance with the direction contained above.