JUDGMENT R.P, Gupta, Member. - The present revision is filed by Baboo Lal and 103 others against L.M.C. Purab Sarira and State of U.P. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Land Management Committee village Purab Sarira Pargana Atharban Tahsil Manjhanpur, district Allahabad, on 26-4-81 passed a resolution for allotment of land on Patta to 127 persons including the present revisionist. This resolution was sent for the approval of S.D.O. under Rule 176 of U.P.Z.A & L.R. Rules. S.D.O. Manjhanpur district Allahabad vide his order dated 20-2-82 refused his approval regarding all the 127 persons on the ground that 31 persons were not entitled to pattas and as such it cannot be said that the recommendation for Patta regarding other persons also was correct. The revision filed against this order of S.D.O. 20-2-82 was dismissed by Additional Commissioner Allahabad on 30-4-82. Now the present revision is filed before this court. 3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The learned counsel for the revisionists on the basis of 1986 R.D. page 8 argued that the said order of the S.D.O. is reviseable. He further argued on the basis of 1983 R.D. 179 that before rejecting the pattas opportunity of hearing should have been given to the revisionists in whose 4 favour the said resolution was passed by L. M. C. He further argued that there was no justification for the S.D.O. to refuse the permission regarding in other persons when only 31 persons out of the 127 were not entitled for pattas. In reply the learned D.G.C. (R.) justified the order of the S.D.O. and argued that Rule 176 does not provide for hearing. Where the intention of the legislature was that hearing should be given, the legislature made specific provision for hearing as under Rule 178-A (1) of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. 4. I have considered the above arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. By his order 20-2-82 S.D.O. cancelled the entire resolution. This order of S.D.O. is a judicial order and is revisable under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as held by the hon'ble High Court in Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Semari v. Addl. Commissioner (Admn.), 1986 RD 8. 5. By his order 20-2-82 S.D.O. cancelled the entire resolution. This order of S.D.O. is a judicial order and is revisable under Section 333 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act as held by the hon'ble High Court in Matsya Jivi Sahkari Samiti Semari v. Addl. Commissioner (Admn.), 1986 RD 8. 5. In Om Prakash v. Gaon Sabha, 1988 RD 179 learned Member, Board of Revenue Sri S.K. Lakhtakiya held that "the order of disapproval of the resolution is a judicial one and must be passed after hearing both the parties and after taking evidence." It is true that he has not referred Rule 176 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, but his view is the correct view. It is true that the legislature in Rule 176 has not made any specific provision for hearing but still hearing is a must having regard to the principle of natural justice. In Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 it was held that : - "Although there are no positive words in the statute requiring that the party shall be heard, yet the justice of the common law will supply the omission of the legislature. The principle of Audi alteram partem, which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard is part of the rules of natural justice. Natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown in a widely persuasive rule effecting large areas of administrative action. The enquiry must always be ; does fairness in action demand that an opportunity to be heard should be given to the person effected ?...There can be no distinction between a quasi judicial function and an administrative function for this purpose. The law must now be taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable." 6. Thus it is clear that even in the absence of specific provision in Rule 176 U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, S.D.O. is bound to hear the affected parties before refusing to give his approval. 7. The result is that the present revision is allowed and the orders passed by the court below are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for rehearing after giving opportunity of hearing to the affected persons including revisionists. 7. The result is that the present revision is allowed and the orders passed by the court below are set aside and the case is remanded to the trial court for rehearing after giving opportunity of hearing to the affected persons including revisionists. Parties shall bear their own costs.