Sanjay Misra, J. - (1.) Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 as also learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 28.9.2001 passed by the Board of Revenue in reference No. 129-13.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that upon a reference made to the Board of Revenue an order dated 28.7.2001 has been passed in mutation proceeding, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. Consequently, he filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order and the Board of Revenue found that no notices were sent to the petitioner before deciding the reference and therefore recalled the order dated 28.7.2001 by the order dated 27.12.2003 and restored the reference to its original number. He contends that after restoration and recall of the earlier order, the impugned order has been passed. The contention is that apart from narrating the sequence of events of the proceeding from the stage of S.D.O. upto the Board of Revenue the impugned order does not contain any reason whatsoever. The contention is that the Board of Revenue has come to the conclusion that earlier order dated 28.7.2001 was important and in accordance with law therefore the same is confirmed. It is contended that since the order dated 28.7.2001 had already been set aside and did not exist the same could not be confirmed. It is also contended that the earlier order was recalled for the purpose of giving opportunity to the petitioner. The impugned order does not indicate that it has considered any ground taken by the petitioner and as such it is contended that the same has been passed by non-application of mind without any reason and without considering the case of the petitioner.;