Vikram Nath, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. On 19.12.2007 the following order was passed - "The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue allowed the revision by order dated 2nd July, 2007 without issuing any notice and without hearing the petitioners. Subse quently the recall application filed by the petitioners has also been re jected without assigning any rea sons by order dated 7th November, 2007. Normally this Court would not interfere in summary proceed ings arising out of Land Revenue Act but only on the ground of de nial of opportunity this petition is being entertained. Learned Standing Counsel represent ing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 may file counter affidavit within one month. Issue notice to respondent No. 3. Steps may be taken on or before 7th January, 2008. List this petition on the date mentioned in ' the notice. Till the next date of listing, the ef fect and operation of the impugned orders dated 2.7.2007 and 7.11.2007 passed by Board of Revenue shall remain stayed."
(2.) PARTIES have exchanged their affi davits. From a perusal of the counter affi davit and the impugned order dated 2.7.2007 it is clearly established that the Board of Revenue without issuing notices and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner who was opposite party in the revision, allowed the revision and remitted the matter. The order of the Board of Revenue thus, suffers from lack of opportunity and therefore, cannot be sus tained. It is accordingly quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Board of Revenue for deciding the revision afresh on merits after affording due oppor tunity of hearing to the concerned parties strictly in accordance with law.
(3.) PETITION is accordingly allowed. PETITION Allowed.;