This is a revision against the order of the Additional Collector, Udaipur dated 2.10.58. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. The applicants occupied certain land in Bhupalsagar Tehsil and the learned Tehsildar Bhupalsagar treating it as an unauthorised occupation gave notice to them to evict the land, heard their objection against the same and also recorded their evidence and finally held that the applicants be treated as trespasser under sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and dispossessed from the land, and also ordered under sec. 183 to recover six times the rent by way of penalty for the intervening period. An appeal was preferred against it to the Additional Collector, Udaipur who also confirmed the order. Hence this revision. 3. The main point urged in this revision is that the applicants were not given notice under sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, that they could not be ordered to Be dispossessed from the land without having been given notice prescribed under sec. 91, that the notice alleged to have been given was not in accordance with the one prescribed under that section as it did not show all the numbers of the land, etc. It has also been contended that the land was in possession of the applicants since Svt. 2008, that the had spent a lot of money in erecting a Bandha thereon and that under the provision of sec. 183, no order could be passed against them nor could any order be passed under sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act for a land occupied before the enforcement of that Act. Manifestly the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that sec. 91 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act could not be made applicable to a case of occupation of land without authority before the enforcement of the Land Revenue Act was devoid of force. The section contemplates not only any person who occupied any land without lawful authority but also one who continues to occupy the same as such. Continued occupation by the applicants of the land under dispute without any lawful authority renders them liable to be regarded as trespassers and summarily evicted therefrom by the Tehsildar under Sub-sec. (1) of that section. The section contemplates not only any person who occupied any land without lawful authority but also one who continues to occupy the same as such. Continued occupation by the applicants of the land under dispute without any lawful authority renders them liable to be regarded as trespassers and summarily evicted therefrom by the Tehsildar under Sub-sec. (1) of that section. It is not contested that the application for allotment of this land made by them had been rejected and they had been informed of the same order. As for the contention that they have not been given notice in accordance with sec. 91, the learned counsel has not been able to show that any special form of notice had been prescribed under this section. Rather, he has conceded that no special form had been prescribed. Sub-sec. (3) of this section contained the provision for a notice not in the prescribed form, but only notice to be served in the prescribed manner. What was required to be contained in the notice issued under this section was that it should specify such land and should state the date by which it was required to be vacated or the trespasser should appear and show cause why he should not be so evicted therefrom. The learned Government Advocate showed on the record a notice which contained the specifications of the disputed land and which also specified the date by which the land was to be evicted by the applicants or they were required to appear and show cause against the same. The learned counsel for the applicants has not contested that notice. The notice bore the thumb impressions of the applicants and so this contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the same was not served upon them is also without force. The applicants have appeared in response to this notice and produced their evidence which has been duly considered by the learned Tehsildar and then alone he has passed the orders evicting the applicants from the land. The learned Additional Collector has also considered all the objections raised by the applicants and disallowed them. No illegality and material irregularity has been shown to have been committed in doing so. The revision is therefore hereby dismissed.