JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, recommending that the revision filed against the order of the Tahsildar/Assistant Collector first Class, Gonda in case No. 174 under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act/Rule 115-C, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, Gaon Sabha v. Jugla Saran and others, may be dismissed insofar as ejectment is concerned but the amount of damages may be reduced to Rs. 86.70. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. On the report of the Lekhpal that Jugla Saran, Radhey Syam and Jagannath had trespassed over plot No. 144 in village Kalanderpur Chaube, which was Gram Samaj property, since 1371 Fasli. Notice in Z.A. Form 49-A was issued by the Tahsildar of Gonda. In reply, Jugla Saran filed an objection to the effect that he was in possession of the land in dispute since 25 years as groveholder/Bhumidhar and even if his rights of groveholder/Bhumidhar were not recognised, he had acquired Sirdari rights under Section 210, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. Ram Lachhan, Ramdas and Ramanand, minor sons of Jagannath (deceased) also filed an objection to the effect that they had become Sirdars of the land in dispute by virtue of their long possession. Certain other persons, Durga Prasad, Jamuna Prasad, Jhagru Dutt and Jagat Ram to whom notices had not been issued, also filed objection to the effect that they had been using the land in dispute for keeping their Khalihan' since the time of their forefathers and Jugla Saran, Ram Lachhan and Radhey Syam should be restrained from interfering with their use of the land. After considering the evidence of all parties, the Tahsildar/Assistant Collector First Class held that Jugla Saran, Radhey Shyam, Ram Lachhan, Ram Das and Ramanand were trespassers on Gram Samaj land and ordered their ejectment. He also directed recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 3034.50. 4. After considering the evidence of all parties, the Tahsildar/Assistant Collector First Class held that Jugla Saran, Radhey Shyam, Ram Lachhan, Ram Das and Ramanand were trespassers on Gram Samaj land and ordered their ejectment. He also directed recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 3034.50. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the trial court has acted illegally in deciding the case without observing mandatory provisions of law regarding procedure of a case under Section 122-B, that the trial court had exercised jurisdiction not vested in it in law when the revisionists title to the land was proved or at least a bona fide dispute of title was involved, and that the trial court acted illegally in calculating damages at the rate of fifty times for full seven years when this rate was provided only a year before. 5. On a preliminary question put to the learned District Government Counsel whether the Tahsildar/Assistant Collector First Class was competent to pass orders in a case under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act/Rule 115-C, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules, the learned District Government Counsel has answered that the State Government has by a notification empowered the Sub-Divisional Officers and the Tahsildars to exercise the jurisdiction of a Collector under these provisions. The relevant notification is No. 3195/I-A-3594, dated June 30, 1962. 6. Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act refers to the powers of the Land Management Committee and the Collector with regard to Gaon Sabha property. Sub-section (2) empowers the Collector to take steps for the ejectment of the person in wrongful occupation of Gaon Sabha land and for recovery of compensation. Sub Section (3) says that the procedure to be followed in any action taken under sub-section (2) would be such as may be prescribed. The procedure has been prescribed in Rules 115-C to 115-H of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. Rule 115-C authorises the Chairman, member of Secretary of the Land Management Committee to report cases of wrongful occupation of the Gaon Sabha property to the Collector. Rule 115-D provides that the Collector may call upon the person concerned through notice in Z.A. Form 49-A to remove the wrongful occupation and pay damages or to show cause against it within the period not exceeding fifteen days as may be specified in a notice. Rule 115-D provides that the Collector may call upon the person concerned through notice in Z.A. Form 49-A to remove the wrongful occupation and pay damages or to show cause against it within the period not exceeding fifteen days as may be specified in a notice. Under Rule 115-E the person to whom the notice in Z.A. Form 49-A has been issued is to be given an opportunity of being heard. Thereafter the Collector may either drop the proceedings or pass such orders or take such action as may be necessary for removal of wrongful occupation from land and for realisation of damages as the case may be. The procedure detailed above has been fully followed by the learned. Tahsildar/Assistant Collector First Class and the learned counsel for the revisionists has failed to show that this procedure was violated in any manner. 7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists that the revisionists title to the land was proved or at least a bona fide question of title was involved, a perusal of the trial court shows that the Lekhpal had reported that the revisionists are entered in Varg 4 of the Khatauni and the period as noted is from before 1373 Fasli. The Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha has deposed that the land in dispute was given to Jugla Saran in 1957 for planting a grove through a resolution of the Land Management Committee and since then it was in his possession. He also deposed that some trees on this land belonged to Ram Lachhan. Kesho Ram, who claims to be the gateman working on the Railway gate adjacent to the land in dispute for the last twenty-eight years, has deposed that the revisionists were in possession of the land for the last twenty-eight years. This is also the evidence of the three other witnesses. Thus the evidence of both sides is unanimous on the point of possession of the revisionists over the land in dispute for a number of years. The statement of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee that the land had been given to the revisionist Jugla Saran for planting a grove by a resolution of the Land Management Committee, has not been challenged. The statement of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee that the land had been given to the revisionist Jugla Saran for planting a grove by a resolution of the Land Management Committee, has not been challenged. Even the Lekhpal admits that the Khatauni records the possession of the revisionists since before 1373 Fasli but has not stated the period when this occupation commenced. It is thus fully established that a bona fide question of title was involved, and the learned Tahsildar has exercised jurisdiction not vested with him in proceeding with the case. The learned Additional Commissioner has misread the evidence, in particular, the statements of the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha/Land Management Committee and of the Lekhpal. His recommendation is, therefore, perverse and not in accordance with law. The learned Additional Commissioner has also wrongly stated that the consolidation courts have held against the revisionists. No such order of the consolidation court is either on record or even mentioned by any of the witnesses. The learned Additional Commissioner has also misread the certified extract from consolidation Form 45 which clearly records that the revisionists are in possession of the land in dispute without recording the year (Col.3) in which the occupation commenced. Thus, the finding of both the courts below that the possession commenced in 1371 Fasli is completely against the evidence on record and perverse. 8. The learned counsel for the revisionists has referred to Gram Samaj v. Dy Director Consolidation, 1969 R.D. 356 where it has been held that under para 128 of the Gaon Samaj Manual the conduct of the Gram Samaj Manual the conduct of the Gram Samaj litigation shall be a matte of resolution of the Land Management Committee. Where the Land Management Committee it self has by a resolution given the land in dispute to the revisionists, proceedings under Section 122-B/Rule 115-C cannot be taken unless the steps are first taken for the cancellation of the lease or the permission in question. Since the resolution of the Land Management Committee is stated to be of 1957, even proceedings under Section 198, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act would now be completely time-barred. 9. The result is that I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order of the learned Tahsildar, Assistant Collector.