JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Darshan against the order dated March 16, 1970 passed by the Tahsildar, Fatehpur in a case under Rule 115-D, UPZA and LR Rules, may be partly allowed. 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 encroached upon plots Nos. 60, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 83 in village Jakhanim notice in ZA Form 49-Ka was issued to the revisionist requiring him to appear and file his objection, if any, on March 9, 1970. The revisionist was personally served with this notice on March 4, 1970. He, however, failed to appear. Thereafter the Tahsildar recorded the statement of the Lekhpal and held that the unauthorised occupation over Gaon Sabha land was proved. He passed an order ejecting the revisionist and also imposed Rs. 670/- as damages. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are, firstly, that no valid notice was issued or served for plots Nos. 60, 62, 65, 67 and 83; secondly, that no sufficient opportunity to produce evidence was given, and thirdly, that no notice under Rules 115-E(2) and 115-E(4), UPZA and LR Rules was issued. The record clearly goes against the revisionist. Notice in ZA Form 49-Ka was duly issued for all the plots including plots Nos. 60, 62, 65, 67 and 83 and was personally received by the revisionist. Proper opportunity to file objection and to produce was given to the revisionist, but the revisionist chose not to appear and thereby did not avail of the opportunity. 5. As regards the compliance of Rules 115-E(2) and 115-E(4) these provide as follows : "115-E(2). In case the person to whom notice in ZA Form 49-A has been issued, contests the notice, he shall be required to file his objection in triplicate. The Land Management Committee or the Local authority, as the case may be, shall be informed to appear on the date fixed for evidence alongwith necessary documents and witnesses which such Committee or authority might like to produce. The Land Management Committee or the Local authority, as the case may be, shall be informed to appear on the date fixed for evidence alongwith necessary documents and witnesses which such Committee or authority might like to produce. In the case of the Land Management Committee a copy of the objection shall be given to the Gaon Sabha Panel Lawyer and another copy shall be sent to the Chairman of the Committee and in the case of a local authority, a copy of the objection shall be given to the Standing Counsel, if any, thereof and another copy shall be sent to the Chief Executive Officer of the authority. It is only after considering the evidence, if any, of the objections and the Land Management Committee or local authority, as the case may be, that the Collector shall pass final orders." '115-E(4). In case the Collector holds that the objector has cause the damage to, or misappropriation or wrongful occupation of, any property vested in the Gaon Sabha or the local authority, as the case may be, and he is present in court, the Collector shall, soon after announcing his final order, serve upon him an abstract of final order in ZA Form 49-B. In contested case, where the objection is not present on the date of the final order or in case the person against whom notice was issued order or in case the person against whom notice was issued in Zamindari Abolition Form 49-A is absent in spite of service and orders have been against him ex parte, the Collector shall cause a notice in ZA Form 49-B to be served upon him." 6. The record shows that there has been no violation of these rules in any manner. The learned Tahsildar has duly considered whatever evidence was on record and has given his finding in a proper manner. 7. Coming to the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I find that the revisionist's claim only for two plots, namely plots Nos. 64 and 66 has been upheld. according to the learned Additional Commissioner, the revisionist was found recorded in possession over these two plots before 1360 Fasli. This is indeed so in the Khatauni of 1376 to 1378 Fasli and has been admitted by the Lekhpal. As such the revision in respect of these plots must be allowed. 8. 64 and 66 has been upheld. according to the learned Additional Commissioner, the revisionist was found recorded in possession over these two plots before 1360 Fasli. This is indeed so in the Khatauni of 1376 to 1378 Fasli and has been admitted by the Lekhpal. As such the revision in respect of these plots must be allowed. 8. There is, however, nothing on record to interfere with the trial court's order in respect of the remaining plots Nos. 60, 62, 65, 67 and 83. 9. The learned counsel for the revisionist has referred to Girand v. Gaon Sabha 1974 RD 326 ; Ram Sanehi v. Gaon Sabha 1976 RD 124 and Majid v. Gaon Sabha 1978 RD 245. All these rulings are to the effect that the issue of a proper notice in ZA Form 49-Ka is necessary. I find that the notice issued in the present case does not suffer from any material effect. Rule 115-D of the UPZA and LR Rules provides that the following information shall be obtained by the Collector during the course of the enquiry :- (a) full description of damage or misappropriation caused or the wrongful occupation made with details of village, mohal or ward, plot number, area, boundary, property damaged or misappropriated and market value thereof; (b) full address alongwith father's name of the person responsible for the damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation. (c) period of wrongful occupation, damage or misappropriation, class of soil of the plot numbers involved and hereditary rates applicable to them; and (d) value of the property damaged or misappropriated, calculated at the prevailing market rate in the locality." It does not say that all this information shall be contained in the notice in ZA Form 49-Ka itself. The form of ZA From 49-Ka has been prescribed and it has no column in which the period of wrongful occupation or class of soil of plot numbers involved or the hereditary rates applicable or their market value have to be filled in. This information may be gathered in the course of the enquiry. ZA Form 49-Ka is merely a preliminary notice to be given to the alleged encroacher giving the basic information of the alleged encroachment or damage or misappropriation done by him. My learned colleague Mr. J.S. Gupta has read more in the Form 49-Ka than is indicated. This information may be gathered in the course of the enquiry. ZA Form 49-Ka is merely a preliminary notice to be given to the alleged encroacher giving the basic information of the alleged encroachment or damage or misappropriation done by him. My learned colleague Mr. J.S. Gupta has read more in the Form 49-Ka than is indicated. I agree with his basic concept that a proper notice in ZA. Form 49-Ka is mandatory and proceedings taken on the basis of a defective notice are vitiated in law, but there is nothing to suggest that notice becomes defective merely because the year of trespass or the amount of damages is not mentioned in the notice. However, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Tahsildar to impose damages when there is no mention of any damages in the notice. 10. The result is that accepting the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby partly allow the revision. The order of the trial court for the ejectment of the revisionist from plots Nos. 60, 62, 65, 67 and 83 is confirmed, while the order for the ejectment of the revisionists from plots Nos. 64 and 66 is set aside. The order regarding the imposition of damages is also set aside.