JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Ibrahim Commissioner, Jhansi Division, recommending that the revision against the order dated March 12, 1973 passed by Tahsildar/Asst. Collector, Banda in case no. 118 u/r 115-C of Z.A. Rules where by the revisionist was ordered to be ejected may be dismissed so far as the ejectment is concerned, but the damages may be reduced to Rs. 20.60. 2. I have heard the Id. counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The lekhpal had reported that the revisionist had trespassed over Gaon Sabha plot no. 575m, which was a tank with effect from 1379F. A show cause notice in A.Z. Form 49-Ka was issued to the revisionist who filed an objection starting that the plot in question was his khalihan from before the abolition of Zamindari and that he had acquired Sirdari rights. After recording the evidence of both sides the Tahsildar passed the impugned order. 4. The Id. counsel for the revisionist has contended that he revisionist is in the possession the dispute land before the abolition Zamindari for the purposes of Khalihan and that he has become Bhumidahr of the land now. He has also argued that the question of title is also involved. 5. It would be observed that the revisionist had before the tahsildar claimed that he had acquired Sirdari rights over the plot, but in revision he has claimed to have acquired Bhumidhari rights. The evidence on behalf of Gaon Sabha consisted of the statement of the lekhpal as well as extracts from the Khatauni and the khasra. The lekhpal has deposed the at the plot in question was Gaon Sabha property which had been trespassed by the revisionist form 1379F. The Khasra and the Khatauni also record the plot as a tank, under the category of uncultivated land. The only evidence the revisionist could produce was the oral testimony of himself and of another person Ram Kumar. This Ram Kumar however, admits that plot in question was apart of the tank and was full of water during the rainy season. According to him only after the rainy season the land was vacant and was used as Khalihan. Oral testimony on behalf of the revisionist is quite in adequate to prove that he has acquired either Bhumidhari or Sirdari title. According to him only after the rainy season the land was vacant and was used as Khalihan. Oral testimony on behalf of the revisionist is quite in adequate to prove that he has acquired either Bhumidhari or Sirdari title. U/s. 44 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act there is a presumption of the correctness of the entries in the revenue records and this presumption has not been rebutted by the revisionist. 6. The Id. counsel for the revisionist has also failed to show that any bona fide question of title was involved. The word 'bona fide' means in good faith. Good faith can only be established if the revisionist produced some positive evidence of acquiring tenancy in the land. Apart from the evidence of the Gaon Sabha the revisionist's own evidence proves to the hilt that the plot in question is a tank. A tank is land of public utility in the village. Even if when the tank dries up in the summary and the land is used for keeping Khalihan a person does not get either Bhumidhari or Sirdari rights. Thus the claim of title raised by the revisionist is entirely mala fide. The trial court rightly ordered the ejectment of the revisionist from the land in question holding him to be a trespasser. 7. As regard the damages no counsel has raised any objection to the reduction of the damages by the Id. Commissioner. Accordingly I accept the reference made by the Id. Commissioner and dismiss the revision petition in so far as ejectment is concerned, but order that the amount of damages be reduced to Rs. 20.60.