ORDER Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dvivedi, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, Mr. B.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 and learned J.C. to S.C.3 (Ceiling). 2. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 4.2.2005 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, in Board Case No. 124 of 2004 (Annexure-3). 3. This Case has chequered history. In first round of litigation the admitted pesition was that the land was recorded in Khatian as an orchard. The stand taken by the petitioners of this case was that such land was not an agricultural land. Ultimately the learned single Judge held that even an orchard was fully covered by the definition of land in Section 2(f) of the Ceiling Act and simply on that account the disputed land could not be out of the purview of the Act. But before the learned single Judge and specially before the L.P.A. Bench the stand taken was that there was a house on the land in question and the pre-emptor himself had constructed a house adjoining the land and thus the nature of the land had undergone a change. Since there was no evidence led by the parties on this issue the case had been fought solely on the question of maintainability, the matter was remanded back to the original court for reconsideration after considering the evidence to be led by the parties. 4. Thereafter on reconsideration of the entire matters and considering all the evidence and facts and circumstances on the record the D.C.L.R. dismissed the preemption application by order dated 21.11.2000 (Annexure 1). The respondents filed an appeal being L.C. Appeal no. 13/1001 and the same was rejected by order dated 12.2.2004 of the Additional Collector. Both the D.C.L.R. as well as the Additional Collector discussed the evidence in detail including existence of the house even from the day prior to the filing of the pre-emption application. The respondents being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders filed revision before the Member, Board of Revenue which was registered as Board Case No. 124 of 2004 and by a cryptic order dated 4.2.2005 the Additional Member, Board. Of Revenue, allowed the revision and set aside the appellate as well as original order. The respondents being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders filed revision before the Member, Board of Revenue which was registered as Board Case No. 124 of 2004 and by a cryptic order dated 4.2.2005 the Additional Member, Board. Of Revenue, allowed the revision and set aside the appellate as well as original order. From a perusal of the said order it appears that the only fact taken into consideration by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, was that the land in question was undisputedly recorded as an orchard in the concerned Khatian. Only on the basis of the said Khatian entry and without considering the evidence that had been discussed in the order of the appellate court as well as the D.C.L.R. the orders have been set aside. In my opinion, the said order suffers from a complete lack of application of mind. 5. In my view of the aforesaid facts, the order dated 4.2.05 passed by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, is quashed and the matter is remanded back to him for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. This application in accordingly allowed.