JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad recommending that the revision filed by Sunder Lal against the order dated March 2, 1973 passed by the Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, First Class, district Kanpur, directing his ejectment and imposing damages under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, may be allowed and the proceedings dropped with the direction that the Gaon Sabha may proceed in a regular suit if it so desires. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. The facts may be briefly stated as under:- On the basis of the report of the Lekhpla that the revisionist Sunder Lal along with one Chandrika had made unauthorised occupation of plot No. 1088 with an area of 1 bigha 8 biswas with effect from 1375 F. The Tahsildar Assistant Collector, First Class issued a notice in Z.A. Form 49 Ka to both the occupants. Chandrika did not contest the notice at all. The revisionist Sunder Lal on the other hand, filed objection on September 20, 1972 firstly to the effect that he had nothing to do with the land in question and had no possession over it in any manner, secondly on October 12, 1972 he filed another objection to the effect that he was in possession over the plot in dispute since before the abolition of Zamindari and had acquired Sirdari rights. After recording the evidence of both the sides, the Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, First Class ordered both the occupants to vacate the land by August 31, 1973 and also to pay Rs. 840/- as costs of damages, to the Gaon Sabha for a period of occupation since 1366 F. This order has been challenged in the present revision by Sunder Lal alone, but the other occupant Chandrika has not contested the order. 4. The main ground of revision is that the revisionist is in possession over the plot in dispute prior to the abolition of Zamindari and has become Sirdar of the plot in dispute and that the trial court has not considered the oral and documentary evidence to this effect. 5. I am afraid the learned Additional Commissioner had not properly considered the case at all. It was nobody's case that the revisionist acquired Sirdari rights by virtue of being in possession on the land in suit from 1366F. 5. I am afraid the learned Additional Commissioner had not properly considered the case at all. It was nobody's case that the revisionist acquired Sirdari rights by virtue of being in possession on the land in suit from 1366F. The case of the revisionist was that he was in possession not from 1366F. But from before the abolition of Zamindari and thus became Sirdar whereas the case of the Gaon Sabha was that he was merely a trespasser with no rights. Now as to the question of possession before the abolition of Zamindari the revisionist could not produce a single extract from the revenue record or a single witness (except himself) to this effect. He has, however, filed certain Percha Abpashi. The Parcha Abpashi cannot be considered to be a reliable proof of possession as they can be easily procured. Moreover, there is not a single Parcha Abpashi of the period prior to the abolition of Zamindari. Also, in the Parcha Abpashi 1952, 1953, 1955 and 1956 the area of the plot No. 1088 is shown to be much less than the actual area. Thus, I find no sufficient reason to interfere in the finding of the trial court that the revisionist has been in possession of the disputed plot only since 1366F. and not before Zamindari Abolition. 6. The question arises whether and when a person can acquire Sirdari rights over the Gaon Sabha land by virtue of adverse possession commencing from 1366F. It must-be remembered that there have been important amendments made in the law with a view to discourage unauthorised occupation of the Gaon Sabha land. Now, the period of limitation for filing a suit for ejectment in the case of unauthorised possession has been raised to 30 years for the Gaon Sabha or the State. This means that if adverse possession of Gaon Sabha land commences in 1366F. the law will permit a suit for ejectment to be filed upto 1396F. and no rights by virtue of adverse possession shall be deemed to accrue till this period of limitation is over. The status of a person in unauthorised occupation of Gaon Sabha land will be that of a trespasser and no more till the period of 30 years is over. The position of course would have been different if the law had not raised the period of limitation from 12 to 30 years. 7. The status of a person in unauthorised occupation of Gaon Sabha land will be that of a trespasser and no more till the period of 30 years is over. The position of course would have been different if the law had not raised the period of limitation from 12 to 30 years. 7. The trial court has thus rightly held that the revisionist was liable to be ejected from the land in suit and had ordered his ejectment. There is also no irregularity in the imposition of damages. Disagreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner. I hereby reject the revision. The record shall be returned to the Collector with the direction that the ejectment of the revisionist and the realisation of damages shall be done within a month and compliance reported to this court. The Assistant Collector in his order dated March 2, 1973 assessed damages only uptil that date. If the revisionist has been in possession of the land even after March 2, 1973, the Assistant Collector shall also take separate proceedings for assessment of damages after March 2, 1973 in accordance with the law.