JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Ifrahim, Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi recommending that the revision against the order dated July 15, 1972 passed by the Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Mau in case No. 36 under Rule 115-C, Z.A. and L.R. Rules may be accepted and the order of the trial court be set aside and the case remanded for a fresh decision. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The lekhpal had reported that the revisionist Sharda Prasad had unlawfully trespassed over plot No. 946 and 1177/2 which were the property of the Gaon Sabha, Bahabhet with effect from 1372F. A show cause notice was issued to him. In reply he filed an objection stating that he was not in possession over the plots in question and had nothing to do with them. On the other hand the plots were in possession of his real brother Anandi Prasad. Anandi Pd. has also filed an objection to the effect that he was in possession of the plots in dispute on the basis of a lease duly executed by the Gaon Sabha in his favour. The learned Tahsildar-Asstt. Collector, 1st Class has after recording the evidence ordered the ejectment of Sharda Prasad from the land in suit and has also levied damages amounting to Rs. 620.80. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the findings of the trial court are perverse and are erroneous, that the procedure adopted was highly prejudicial and improper, that the revisionist's brother had acquired he land in suit through a lease executed by the L.M.C. and the trial court erroneously ignored it and that as a bona fide dispute of title was involved no summary proceedings were maintainable. 5. The records shows that there is a lease duly executed by the L.M.C. on July 12, 1967 in favour of Anandi Prasad. This lease has also been attested by the Supervisor Kanungo. The Lekhpal/Secretary of L.M.C. has himself stated in his evidence that Anandi Prasad was in possession of the land in suit on the basis of this lease and that by some mistake the name of revisionist, Sharda Prasad, had been entered as both lived together. This lease has also been attested by the Supervisor Kanungo. The Lekhpal/Secretary of L.M.C. has himself stated in his evidence that Anandi Prasad was in possession of the land in suit on the basis of this lease and that by some mistake the name of revisionist, Sharda Prasad, had been entered as both lived together. There was no evidence whatsoever on the record that the revisionist Sharda Prasad was in possession over the land or had trespassed over it. In the face of it the entire proceedings before the learned Tahsildar/Asstt. Collector, 1st, Class are without jurisdiction and in fact amount to misuse of Rule 115-C. The learned Commissioner has also erred in recommending that the case be remanded for a fresh decision as the proceedings under Rule 115-C are not maintainable in the present case. 6. The result is that I hereby allow the revision, set aside the impugned order of the learned. Tahsildar/Asstt. Collector, 1st Class and quash the entire proceedings.