JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, M. - This is a reference made by Sri S.M. Hasan, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, recommending that the revision against the order dated August 2, 1970 passed by the Tahsildar, Sultanpur in Case No. 85 under Section 122-B, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. On the report of the Lekhpal that the revisionist had made unauthorised occupation of certain Gaon Sabha plots, notice as required under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules was given to the revisionist. The revisionist claimed that he was in possession over the land in dispute from before abolition of Zamindari and that a number of trees were planted by his father and the grandfather and an ancestral house stood on this land. The learned Assistant Collector made an inspection of the site and discharged the notice in respect of plot no. 200/2 as in this plot the old trees of the revisionist were found. He, however, ordered the ejectment of the revisionist from plots Nos. 43 and 216M as trespasser and also ordered the payment of Rs. 110-16 as damages. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the trial court has acted illegally in proceeding with the case when it was not legally initiated. This contention has no substance at all. The proceedings were initiated in accordance with law and a proper notice giving the plot numbers and areas of the Gaon Sabha land purported to be encroached upon by the revisionist was issued against the revisionist. 5. The next contention is that the title of the Gaon Sabha was denied and the revisionist claimed his titled and proved it by the evidence on recorded and, therefore, bona fide dispute of title was raised and the present proceedings were not maintainable. This contention is entirely frivolous. A bona fide dispute of title is raised when the person claiming titled produces some creditworthy evidence of that title. Thus, if a person claims tenancy rights, the creditworthy evidence of tenancy would be a Patta executed by the Zamindari or the Gaon Sabha, receipts of payment of rent and similar other documentary evidence. No such evidence has been produced by the revisionist. Thus, if a person claims tenancy rights, the creditworthy evidence of tenancy would be a Patta executed by the Zamindari or the Gaon Sabha, receipts of payment of rent and similar other documentary evidence. No such evidence has been produced by the revisionist. Mere assertion that a person is in occupation of a land from before abolition of Zamindari without an indication how he came to required file once the land does not amount to a bona fide dispute of title. 6. Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the trial court has acted illegally in deciding the case without observing mandatory provisions of law. This contention also has no force. The trial court not only gave opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence but also made a local inspection in order to decide the case in a just manner. The revisionist nowhere claimed that the wanted to produced any oral or documentary evidence. The trial court was, therefore, perfectly justified in deciding the case on the basis of evidence on record and on the basis of the spot inspection. 7. The last contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the calculation of damages is not according to rules and is illegal. This again is not correct. The judgment shows that the trial court imposed damages at the rate of twice the circle rate for the years 1375 Fasli and fifty times the circle rate for the years 1376 and 1377 Faslis. This assessment of damages is in accordance with the rules framed on the subject. 8. I find that the revision has no force. Accepting the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby dismiss the revision.