JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioners have assailed order dated 22.07.2014, Annexure P-6, in terms whereof, District Revenue officer directed Tehsildar, Tehsil Jhaundatta, to reconsider/review the order passed by Collector, Up-Mandal Ghumarwin, qua the attestation of the mutation in favour of the present petitioners, which stands referred to in the impugned order dated 22.07.2014. 2. Besides other contentions raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, one of the contentions raised by him is that the impugned order was passed by the Authorities at the back of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, there is no merit in the petition. 4. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as documents appended therewith. 5. A Perusal of the petition demonstrates that the petitioners have specifically mentioned in Para-11 of the writ petition that both Annexure P-5 and Annexure P-6 were passed by the Authorities at the back of the petitioner. A perusal of the reply filed by the State to said Paras of the writ petition demonstrates that there is no denial of the stand of the petitioners in the reply that the orders were passed at the back of the petitioners. 6. It is settled law that any order, which has civil consequences, cannot be passed at the back of the affected party. In fact, the law as it stands today is that not only quasi- Judicial Authorities but even the Authorities, which are to pass administrative orders, have to adhere to the principles of natural justice, if the order to be passed by them, decides certain rights of the parties. 7. In the present case, as obviously, the impugned orders were going to affect the confirment of proprietory rights upon the petitioners, but natural, the same were having civil consequences as far as the petitioners are concerned and these orders/communications could not have been issued at the back of the petitioners without hearing them. 8. Therefore, on this short count, this petition is allowed. 8. Therefore, on this short count, this petition is allowed. Order dated 22.07.2014, Annexure P-6 is quashed and set aside, with the observation in case the Authorities intend to take any action against the confirment of proprietory rights, upon the petitioners then the same be done, in accordance with law and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.