JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri S.K. Sarkar, Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad recommending that the revision filed by Ram Saran against the order dated October 13, 1970 passed by the Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, First Class, Balrampur, district Gonda in Case No. 4/814 under Rule 115-C, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have done through the record. 3. The Lekhpal/Secretary, Land Management Committee had reported that the revisionist Ram Haran had unlawfully trespassed over Gaon Sabha property. The revisionist Ram Saran is a minor and on his behalf, his mother and natural guardian filed a written statement to the effect that the plot in question had been inherited by the minor son from his father and that now he has acquired Sirdari rights under Section 210, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. It was further stated that on a portion of this plot the revisionist's thirty years old house was standing and as such a bona fide question of title was involved. The revisionist filed extracts from the Khasras from 1364 Fasli to 1375 Fasli which continuously record the possession of the father of the minor and thereafter the minor himself. His mother also appeared as a witness to support his case. On behalf of the Land Management Committee no evidence, oral or documentary, whatsoever was produced yet without any evidence the learned Tahsildar has held that the plot in question was Gaon Sabha property and that the revisionist was a trespasser. This is a most extraordinary way of deciding cases. Where there is no evidence to show that the plot in question is Gaon Sabha property and the only evidence is to the contrary, an Assistant Collector has no jurisdiction to pass any order of ejectment under Rule 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. It is the duty of the Land Management Committee either to adduce evidence of its title before the Assistant Collector in these proceedings, or to file a regular suit for ejectment. The order of the learned Tahsildar/Assistant Collector is, therefore, untenable in the eye of law. The learned Commissioner has failed to consider the evidence on record and to base his recommendation on the evidence. 4. The order of the learned Tahsildar/Assistant Collector is, therefore, untenable in the eye of law. The learned Commissioner has failed to consider the evidence on record and to base his recommendation on the evidence. 4. The result is that I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Tahsildar/Assistant Collector insofar as it relates to the revisionist Ram Saran.