JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Ambika Prasad Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri M.E. Khan, learned State counsel and perused the record. 2. Facts, in brief, of the present writ petition are that petitioner filed a suit under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) registered as Suit No. 117/185/05-06 before Upper Up-Ziladhgikari, Sadar, Lucknow, decided by order dated 27.03.2006. 3. Order dated 27.03.2006 has been challenged by the petitioner by filing an Appeal No. 398B/05-06, dismissed by order dated 31.01.2007 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, thereafter petitioner moved an application for restoration/recall of the order dated 31.01.2007, dismissed by an order dated 01.07.2014. 4. In view of the abovesaid factual background, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court for redressal of his grievances. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the order dated 31.01.2007 is an ex-parte order passed behind the back of the petitioner, as such the petitioner has not been given adequate opportunity to put forward his case before the appellate authority, so the reasoning which is given by the appellate authority while passing the order dated 31.01.2007 is contrary to the principles of natural justice, liable to be set aside. 6. Sri M.E. Khan, learned State counsel submits that against the order dated 31.01.2007, petitioner has got statutory remedy to file an appeal under Section 331 (4) of the Act, so the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record as well as taking into consideration the factual controversy involved in the present case, as stated hereinabove, the position emerged out that the appeal was taken up for admission on 31.01.2007. On the said date, the petitioner/appellate was not present, however, the appellate authority proceeded to decide the appeal on merit by order dated 31.01.2007 and dismissed the same, thereafter, petitioner moved an application for recall of the said order, dismissed by order dated 01.07.2014. 8. Thus, the position which emerged out that the order dated 31.01.2007 is an ex-parte passed behind the back of the petitioner without providing any opportunity to him, as such the same is violation of principles of natural justice. 9. 8. Thus, the position which emerged out that the order dated 31.01.2007 is an ex-parte passed behind the back of the petitioner without providing any opportunity to him, as such the same is violation of principles of natural justice. 9. It is well settled/position of law that denial of natural justice in a modern society is not acceptable. India has a progressive society and a modern constitution. Natural justice is a parameter of all the modern constitution of the world. 10. It is difficult to define natural justice. I find that Black J has most aptly described it as" Natural justice understandably meant no more than justice without the adjective" ( Green V Blake,[1948]IR 242). Justice Krishna Iyer in Mohinder Singh Gill v The Chief Election Commissioner: (1978) 1 SCC 405 has traced its root in Kautilya's Arthasastra in following terms, "Indeed, from the legendary days of Adam -- and of Kautilya's Arthasastra -- the rule of law has had this stamp of natural justice which makes it social justice. We need not go into these deeps for the present except to indicate that the roots of natural justice and its foliage are noble and not new-fangled. Today its application must be sustained by current legislation, case-law or other extant principle, not the hoary chords of legend and history. Our jurisprudence has sanctioned its prevalence even like the Anglo-American system." In the case of Bhagwan Shukla, v. Union of India and others 1994 (6) SCC 154 wherein paragraph no.3 (relevant portion)held as under: - "The appellant has obviously been visited with civil consequence but he had been granted no opportunity to show cause against the reduction of his basic pay. He was not even put on notice before his pay was reduced by the department and the order came to be made behind his back without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice and the appellant has been made to suffer huge financial loss without being hears. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequence should be passed without putting the employee concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Fair play in action warrants that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequence should be passed without putting the employee concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 25.7.1991, which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant." 11. In the case of Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. JT 2012 (10) SC 476, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in paragraph no.3 held as under: - "The principles of natural justice embody the right to every person to represent his interest to the court of justice. Pronouncing a judgment which adversely affects the interest of the party to the proceedings who was not given a chance to represent his/its case is unacceptable under the principles of natural justice." In the instant case, the order dated 31.01.2007 passed by Additional Commissioner (Administration), Lucknow Division, Lucknow is an ex-parte order in violation of principles of natural justice, so the obejction raised by learned State counsel that petitioner has got Statutory remedy by way of appeal under Section 331(4) of the Act has got no force, rejected. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned orders dated 31.01.2007 and 01.07.2014 passed by respondent No. 2/Additional Commissioner are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the said authority with a direction to restore the appeal and decide the same after hearing the parties concerned. The said exercise shall be done by him expeditiously, say, within a period of one year from today.