ORDER 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order dated 19.4.2018 passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur was in his favour, which was called in question in a revision filed by the other side before the Board of Revenue. The Board without putting the present petitioner to notice and without hearing him passed the impugned order dated 20.7.2018 and set aside the order of learned Additional Commissioner dated 19.4.2018. This procedure adopted by the Board of Revenue runs contrary to section 50(5) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and against the principles of natural justice. 3. Shri Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent after obtaining instructions fairly admitted that the Board of Revenue passed the order dated 20.7.2018 without issuing notice to the present petitioner. 4. In the opinion of this Court, the procedure adopted by the Board is totally unknown to law. On more than one occasion, this Court has set aside such orders of Board of Revenue and even deprecated the unhealthy practice being adopted by the Board of Revenue. This Court passed strictures against the Board of Revenue for passing such orders. The order impugned runs contrary to the principles of natural justice in Sub-section 6 of section 50 of M.P. Land Revenue Code. 5. For these cumulative reasons, impugned order dated 20.7.2018 is set aside. The matter is remitted back before the Board of Revenue to hear the parties and decide the matter in accordance with law. The petition is allowed. .................