JUDGMENT S.R. Misra, J. 1. BEFORE the arguments could be heard in this case, Sri O. N. Verma appearing for the contesting respondents has pointed out that on 17-1-1985 he has filed an application, duly supported by an affidavit, raising preliminary objection that the writ petition be dismissed as not maintainable, as after the order of demarcation officer, notification has been: Issued and so long as the State Government is not a party to the writ petition, the question of considering the writ petition on merits does not arise. 2. IN support of his contention, Sri Verma has cited 3 authorities, 1955 ALJ 497 : 1957 ALJ 453 : and AIR 1973 SC 1293 , Having placed reliance on the above three authorities, the contension as stated by Sri Verma is that in the absence of the State Government when no effective relief could be granted to the petitioner, no positive purpose will be served in considering the case on merits and as such he has prayed that the application be allowed, and the writ petition be declared as not maintainable. Having considered the argument advanced by Sri Verma on behalf of the contesting respondents. I do not find any substance in the preliminary objection and the reliance placed on above three decisions. The first two decisions (1955 ALJ 497 and 1957 ALJ 453} lay out of the proceedings of Land Acquisition Act, and, a specific procedure has been prescribed. Once a notification under sections 4 and 6 of the Act is issued then irrespective of the pendency of any proceedings land will be deemed to have been acquired free from all encumbrances. In that context if the decision goes to the extent that whether a notification under sections 4 and 6 has to be quashed necessarily State is a necessary party on whose behalf the notification under sections 4 and 6 is issued. 3. In that context if the decision goes to the extent that whether a notification under sections 4 and 6 has to be quashed necessarily State is a necessary party on whose behalf the notification under sections 4 and 6 is issued. 3. SO far as the case of the Apex Court arising out of a second appeal is concerned the matter was taken in Supreme Court and there a question arose that whether the notification under section 8 issued by the State Government, if the Supreme Court was satisfied that the party concerned was entitled to a relief then without quashing the notification in the absence of the State Government would not a reason, and, as such the Supreme Court directed for the impleadment of the State Government as necessary party and thereafter consequential orders were passed. But, from the materials on the record and from the facts narrated in the writ petition, counter affidavit and the admitted facts I do not think that any case arises for quashing the notification as has been stated by the counsel for the respondents. The preliminary objection is without any substance and the same is liable to be rejected. Accordingly the writ petition is liable to be heard on merits. 4. BY means of this writ petition, petitioner seeks a relief for a writ, of certiorari, quashing the impugned order of Board of Revenue dated 26-9- 1978 (Annexure-14). It is not necessary to give detailed facts mentioned in the writ petition as very limited controversy is the subject matter of writ petition, as such. the necessary bare facts which may dispose of the writ petition are being mentioned 5. PETITIONER's husband late Sri Rajendra Prakash Sharma and Sri Devendra Dutt Kaushik, proforma respondent no. 7 were brothers and they were owner of Municipal plot nos. 8, 16, 105 and 106 situated at Begum Bridge Road, Meerut covering an area of 1,617.7 Sq. Yds, 6. A notification under the provisions of U. P. Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') came into force in the year 1957 in respect of Municipality of Meerut where the property is situated. Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Act provide for an elaborate' procedure for the purposes of demarcating land as agricultural land. Procedure for filing objection and determination of the same are provided under these sections. Sections 3,4 and 5 of the Act provide for an elaborate' procedure for the purposes of demarcating land as agricultural land. Procedure for filing objection and determination of the same are provided under these sections. Section 6 of the Act provides that if any clerical or arithmetical error has occurred in any order or proceeding under section 3. 4 and 5.that may be corrected at any time by the Demarcation Officer After the land is demarcated as agricultural land a notification under section 5 is issued According to the petitioner a notification under section 8 was published on 16-6-1964. On 21-12-1965 an application was moved on behalf of the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 before the Demarcation Officer, Meerut standing therein that they had acquired bhumidhari rights by virtue of section 2 (i) (d) of the Act and there was a clerical error in the agricultural area finality demarcated as non-agricultural area but it should have been declared as agricultural area, and, as such, the said demarcation be corrected under section 6 of the Act and necessary notification be made. Petitioner, respondents or any other co-sharers were not impleaded as party to the said application (copy of which is filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition). 7. THE Demarcation Officer on the above application, as it appears from the materials, called for a report from Tehsildar and a report was submitted by the Nayab Tahsildar seating that the lease land namely, Municipal Nos 8,16, 105 and 106, corresponded to Khasra No, 247 and that the Khatauni of 1370F shown as Khasra plot no. 247 is recorded as "Kothi' and the petitioner's late husband and respondent no. 7 were recorded as the Zamindars in the Khewat of 1371F It was further stated that land had been leased before 1-7-1953 for the purpose of erecting buildings and therefore he recommended that an area of 1,617.7 Sq. Yds. be declared as agricultural area and that the respondents 3 to 6 be declared as Bhumidhars thereof. According to the petitioner, she and her husband who was alive at that point of time and the respondent no. 7 have no knowledge of the order passed by the Demarcation Officer dated 12-12-1966. 8. IT appears that Smt. Prabha has made transfer in favour of the' respondent nos 3 to 6. According to the petitioner, she and her husband who was alive at that point of time and the respondent no. 7 have no knowledge of the order passed by the Demarcation Officer dated 12-12-1966. 8. IT appears that Smt. Prabha has made transfer in favour of the' respondent nos 3 to 6. The lease was terminated and the lessors received a reply to the notice from the Advocate of Triloki Nath, the original lessee and, on behalf of his sons, that no term of the lease had been violated and that the cinema hall and shops had been constructed on the land in dispute. IT was further stated that the transfers by various persons of the lease hold lights and the land had been demarcated by the Demarcation Officer under the Act as Agricultural land and therefore the lessors have no right end title on the land in dispute. Farther having received this reply from respondent nos. 3 to 6 petitioner's husband and respondent no. 7 were surprised that the land in question had been demarcated as agricultural area by an order of the Demarcation Officer dated 12 12-1966. Immediately they filed objection before the respondent no. 2 for recall of his order dated 12-12-1966 on the ground that their rights and interest on the land were virtually affected by the order and the order has been passed behind their back in violation of the provisions of the Act, and, it was incumbent on the authority to follow the procedure prescribed in the Act for demarcating land as agricultural land and the order violated the fundamental rights of the applicants, under the Constitution of India. As stated in the writ petition before the Demarcation Officer an affidavit of the petitioner's husband in support of the above and counter' affidavit was also filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3 to 6. The affidavit of Dharmendra Nath Rastogi was also filed and in reply rejoinder affidavit was filed by the husband of the petitioner. 9. THE Demarcation Officer having considered the matter on merits, recalled his earlier order dated 12-12-1966 by his] order dated 1-7-1968. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent nos. 3 to 6 filed revision before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. 9. THE Demarcation Officer having considered the matter on merits, recalled his earlier order dated 12-12-1966 by his] order dated 1-7-1968. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent nos. 3 to 6 filed revision before the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut. He recommended for dismissal of the revision as according to the Additional Commissioner the order of the lower court does not call for interference but it only provide an opportunity which was denied earlier. 10. BEFORE the Additional Commissioner it was urged on behalf of the contesting respondents that no review application lies against the order dated 12-12-1966, The Additional Commissioner was of the view that yet the lower court was perfectly within its jurisdiction in setting aside the order under section 151 of Civil Procedure Code but he held that in the interest of justice that sufficient opportunity which was not afforded to the aggrieved party to put their case, as they have no knowledge of the proceedings and the argument of the contesting respondents on this point was not accepted, the matter was referred to Board of Revenue, Allahabad. The matter was heard by the Board of Revenue on the recommendations received from the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue by its order dated 26-9-1978, disagreeing with the recommendations of the Additional Commissioner, allowed the revision setting aside the order of the trial court, dismissing the review application moved by the opposite party, and, the parties were directed to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue, petitioner has come to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 12. IT has been urged on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that the Board of Revenue has committed clear illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction In interfering against an order of the Demarcation Officer which in fact was an order passed under inheritent powers having come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not been afforded opportunity and the order having passed behind the hack of a necessary party was liable to be recalled and he rightly recalled that order Thereafter in the revisional jurisdiction under section 333 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the Board of Revenue has committed clear illegality. It is further urged that at the point of time when application filed by the petitioner was for recall of an ex parte order, and if the order was passed under section 6 of the Act, then only a clerical or arithmetical mistake could have been corrected. But, the respondent no. 1 erred in rejecting the reference made by the Additional Commissioner who rightly had made a recommendation that the revision may be dismissed. But instead of dismissing the revision, the Board of Revenue allowed the same. If this order is accepted, then this order would be without any opportunity or contest, as by means of a 'miscellaneous application, and order passed earlier by the Demarcation Officer, holding that the land was non-agricultural, the correction to this effect has already been made that the land would be treated as agricultural land. If such an order is apparently passed behind the back of a party, it is incumbent on the part of the authority, or the court of fact, having vested with the power, to recall that order. Thus, the interference by Board of Revenue under revisional jurisdiction is wholly illegal and misconceived. 13. SRI Verma, appearing for the respondent has tried 10 justify she order of the Board of Revenue on the ground that there was undue delay for moving of recall application before the Demarcation Officer and as such the view taken by the Board of Revenue does not call for any interference. 14. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced before me and have also carefully gone through the judgment and orders of the Demarcation Officer, Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue. I have come to the conclusion that Board of Revenue has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, interfering against an order of the Demarcation Officer, who has recalled the order, passed earlier, which was an ex parte order, behind the back of the necessary party. Once such an order is recalled and if there remains some clerical or arithmetical mistake, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the revisional court to rectify the same, resulting in interference with he order, and creating hurdle in the way of affected parties. Such an interference amounts to abuse of exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Once such an order is recalled and if there remains some clerical or arithmetical mistake, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the revisional court to rectify the same, resulting in interference with he order, and creating hurdle in the way of affected parties. Such an interference amounts to abuse of exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Board of Revenue has completely overlooked this aspect of the case and, thus, the impugned judgments and order passed by the Board of Revenue are liable to be set aside. It is clarified that I am not expressing any opinion so far as rest of the controversy, which is subject matter of decision by Demarcation Officer, is concerned. 15. ACCORDINGLY the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of Board of Revenue 26-9-1978 is set aside. The matter will be considered by Demarcation Officer in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties, Since it is an old matter and writ petition remained pending for more than 15 years, it is expected from the Demarcation Officer that he will dispose of the matter within a period of 6 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Parties shall bear their own costs. Petition allowed.