JUDGMENT R.K. Dhusiya, Member - The present revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.3.1981 passed by the learned Addl. Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur by which he dismissed the revision of the revisionist and. upheld the order dated 27.10.1980 passed by the trial court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also seen the relevant papers on the file. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Dulare and others filed an application before the trial court that the lease granted in favour of Lalta and others may be cancelled, that the lease was not granted in accordance with law. The learned S.D.O. ordered for enquiry. The Tehsildar enquired and submitted its report on 22.7.1980. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer after going through the report cancelled the proposal dated 6.8.78/16.10.78 on 27.10.80. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.80 the revisional Kamta Prasad and others filed a revision before the learned Addl. Commissioner who by his order dated 3.3.1981 dismissed the revision holding that the revision is not maintainable. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has argued that learned Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the resolution of L.M.C. without assigning any reason as such it is non speaking order; that the learned Addl. Commissioner wrongly held that it is an administrative order and the revision is misconceived; that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer is bound to pass a speaking order under Rule 176 (1) (2) of Z.A. and L.R. Rules as such, he prayed that the order should be set aside. In reply it is alleged that since the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is an administrative order as such, the revision is not maintainable and since the approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer is mandatory before allotting the land as such, the revision is not maintainable. 5. I find that the learned Addl. Commissioner has recorded finding that the order dated 27.10.1980 passed by the S.D.O. is an administrative order as such, the revision filed against that order is misconceived. I, therefore, do not agree with the finding recorded by the learned Addl. Commissioner because the order passed by the learned S.D.O. is a cursory and slop shod and hence, it is no order in the eye of law. I, therefore, do not agree with the finding recorded by the learned Addl. Commissioner because the order passed by the learned S.D.O. is a cursory and slop shod and hence, it is no order in the eye of law. The order of disapproval of the resolution is a judicial one and must be passed after hearing both the parties and after taking evidence, as held in 1988 R.D. 179. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer did not adopt proper procedure nor did he apply his judicial mind to the facts of the case and merely passed an administrative type of order on the basis of report of Tehsildar as such the same is liable to be rejected. 6. In view of above discussion, I allow the revision, set aside the orders dated 3.3.81 and 27.10.80 passed by the courts below and remand the case to the trial court/S.D.O. to decide it afresh according to law after hearing both the parties and after taking evidence.