JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition arises out of proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. 2. It appears that the petitioner claims the disputed land on the basis of allotment in his favour. The Tahsildar Deoband through his order dated 24-12-1973 ordered ejectment of the petitioner and awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 340/-. Against this order the petitioner preferred a revision which was recommended to be rejected by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut through his order dated 16-7-74. The reference has been dismissed by a learned Member of Board of Revenue through his judgment dated 6-5-1980. Thereafter a review petition was filed by the petitioner which has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Board of Revenue through the order dated 5-11-1981. Aggrieved by the judgment of the revisional court the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that the learned Member has acted illegally in not converting the review petition into restoration application in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has also been stressed that on 6-5-1980 the case was decided behind back of the petitioner or his counsel. In short it has been emphaized that the order passed by revisional court are without affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner or his counsel. 4. The learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha has submitted in reply that the petitioner knew the date fixed in the case and defaulted, therefore, no leniency should be shown to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha the learned Members of the Board of Revenue are fully justified in passing the impugned orders. It has also been stressed that the plaintiff is not in legal occupation of the disputed land, therefore, the claim of the petitioner should be negatived. It has also been stressed that the petitioner has an alternative remedy to establish his claim, therefore, it is not a fit case for interference with the impugned orders. 5. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. In the facts and circumstance involved in the present case the Division Bench consisting of Shri K. Kishore and Shri G.S Tiwari does not appear to have taken correct view in the case. 5. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. In the facts and circumstance involved in the present case the Division Bench consisting of Shri K. Kishore and Shri G.S Tiwari does not appear to have taken correct view in the case. The learned Members in the impugned order have observed as below : " In fact the appellant was informed in Meerut, on 15-2-1980 of the next date 28-4-80 on his own request and it was solely the applicant's default. Even otherwise we do not think its fatal defect in the order because under para 189 of the Revenue Court Manual the Board has discretion to decide reference even without hearing the parties if the order under revision is not to be varied or reversed. 6. In para 10 of the writ petition it has been mentioned that on 28-4-1980 the case was not taken up for hearing and next date of hearing was not fixed. This paragraph has not been specifically controverted in the counter affidavit. In the impugned order it has been mentioned that the reference was duly heard on 28-4-1980 as argued by the learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) and only the judgment could be dictated and signed on 6-5-1980 it was not necessary to inform the applicant of the date after the conclusion of the hearing on 28-4-1980. In view of the aforesaid circumstances it appears that there is some fault in maintaining the order sheet. No doubt the learned members in the impugned order have mentioned that the case was duly heard on 28-4-1980 but in the teeth of specific averment in para. 10 of the writ petition and not properly controverted in the counter affidavit there appears something fishy about the true state of affairs. Added to this in para. 2 of the order of the learned Member dated 6-5-1980 the following observation has been made : ".........The said application was allowed and the case was adjourned for hearing today. When the case was called upon today neither the revisionist nor his counsel nor any one on his behalf appeared. I have heard the learned D.G.C. (R) and went through the record of the case." 7. In the above observation the mention of "today" would mean 6-5-1980, therefore, there appears some mistake on the part of the members deciding the review petition that the case was duly argued on 28-4-1980. I have heard the learned D.G.C. (R) and went through the record of the case." 7. In the above observation the mention of "today" would mean 6-5-1980, therefore, there appears some mistake on the part of the members deciding the review petition that the case was duly argued on 28-4-1980. 8. However, the learned Members deciding the review petition are under patent error with reference to para. 189 of the Revenue Court Manual that the reference could be decided even without hearing the petitioner. In this connection it is proper to mention the ruling reported in 1985 R.D. 46, Bahar Uddin v. Board of Revenue, U.P., Alld. where it has been emphasised that the dismissal of the revision by the Board without affording hearing to the petitioner cannot be sustained. To my mind the decision of the review petition filed by the petitioner is patently erroneous and impugned order deserves to be quashed. 9. It is proper to observe it when a review application has been filed and a prayer had been made for converting the review petition to restoration application I think that the learned Members have not acted reasonably in refusing the prayer specifically in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The decision of the reference on 6-5-1980 is really behind back of the petitioner and his counsel. Whether the petitioner and his counsel were justified in not attending the case on 6-5-1980 should have been examined by the learned Members but they have taken erroneous view and have filed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law, other submissions made by the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha mentioned above have not been pressed at this stage. Therefore, I do not think it proper to express any opinion on the points raised by the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned judgment of the Board dated 5-11-1981 is hereby quashed and the case is sent back to the Board for considering the application filed by the petitioner and in view of my observations above, the aforesaid application should be treated as application for restoring the revision petition to its original number. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5-11-1981 is hereby quashed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.