JUDGMENT M. Saidullah, Member - This is a reference by the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi, dated April 9, 1974 recommending that the three connected revisions against the order dated January 30, 1974 passed by the Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, First Class, Chandauli, district Varanasi, be allowed and the order set aside. 2. The main ground for making the recommendation was that a bona fide question of title over the land on which wrongful occupation was said to have been made by the revisionist, was involved; and as such he could not be directed to be ejected through summary proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules. An objection against the said recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner has been filed before me by Payag, opposite party. 3. Briefly stated, the facts are that Sheo Nath complained that Ram Nath had wrongfully occupied the plot No. 295/1 situated in village Parokha, Pargana Balhupur, Tahsil Chandauli, district. Varanasi. The Supervisor Kanungo reported after an enquiry, that the possession of the opposite party Ram Nath, Nandan and Anganoo was of more than 15 years duration. On the basis of this report, proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act were initiated by the Tehsildar against Ram Nath, Nandan and Angnoo. They contested these proceedings and claimed that Ram Nath was a grove holder over his land for more than 40 years and that his Baithaka, Baile Nand, Khunta and old trees existed on this land. In the northern portion of this land, he was carrying out his cultivation over .32 acre. Nandan also claimed possession over .18 acre for more than 40 years on which he claimed the existence of old trees; and over .20 acre of this land, Anganoo claimed to have been in possession for more than 40 years and he had set up his Marhai. In a later report of the Lekhpal in this mater, against wrongful occupation, for completing the legal formalities, fresh notices were issued on the basis of the Lekhpal's report and thereafter the opposite parties contested the notice and the trial, court ordered their ejectment from that land in suit in respect of each one of the wrongful occupiers. In addition, he imposed Rs. 163.50 P. as damages, on Ram Nath Rs. 105.00 on Anganoo and Rs. 94.50 P. on Nandan. In addition, he imposed Rs. 163.50 P. as damages, on Ram Nath Rs. 105.00 on Anganoo and Rs. 94.50 P. on Nandan. The specific case of the occupiers was that they had obtained this land from Maharaja, Benaras after payment of Rs. 150/- as Nazrana more than 40 years back and that they were neither in wrongful occupation, nor could they be said to have occupied the land of the Gaon Sabha in recent times. It is a basic principle of law that where bona fide claim of title is raised some evidence has to be produced in support of that claim; The revisionists have totally failed to produce any such evidence. There is no documentary evidence to show that they had taken the land after payment of Nazrana from the Maharaja of Benaras as such their assertion on that point remains unsubstantiated. It is also not acceptable that they would have failed to get their claims admitted and established at the time of the abolition of Zamindari and vesting of land in the Gaon Sabha. There is no entry in village records to support their claim. They have not offered any explanation for this lack of effort, on their part. There is thus not an iota of documentary evidence to support their claim of bona fide title. The S.K. and the Lekhpal have placed the duration of possession as 16 years. Both these officials are revenue inspecting officials and it has been a well established practise that their statements on point of possession should be based on relevant, corresponding entries in the village records. There is no corresponding documentary evidence that the possession of the revisionists was for more than 15 years. Such statements of Lekhpal and Kanungo which do not arise out of the entries in village records should have been ignored by the trial court; and the learned Additional Commissioner should not have placed any reliance on this, statement. Shorn of this arbitrary and uncorroborated statements of the supervisor Kanungo and Lekhpal the revisionists have failed to show that their possession was of long standing and no reliance can be placed on their assertion. 4. The next point involved for decision is that constructions exist, on the said land and they cannot be ordered to be demolished in a summary proceedings. 4. The next point involved for decision is that constructions exist, on the said land and they cannot be ordered to be demolished in a summary proceedings. I am not able to accept this argument, because Rule 115-D of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules clearly lays down that wrongful occupation has to be removed. The framers of law could not have thought that they were enacting a legislation which would prove helpless and founder on the stones and bricks and motors of constructions raised by any one after wrongfully occupying the Gaon Sabha land. It is admitted that the land belongs to the Gaon Sabha and the Khatauni entry fully proved it. The erection of any building or any other construction in furtherance of wrongful occupation cannot divest the authorities from ordering the ejectment of that person from the wrongful occupation of the Gaon Sabha land. If such an arrangement is permitted to continue it will reduce the very purpose and function of proceedings under Rule 115-D of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules to a farce inasmuch as a wrongful occupier of the Gaon Sabha land would simply get away by making constructions over the land in his wrongful occupation. When Rule 115-D of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules was enacted the framers must have been aware of the fact that wrongful occupation could be of various kinds and of various shapes. Construction of houses or making of Kachcha or Pucca enclosures or setting up a Marhai could be such kinds and types, and the remedy laid down in the said rules included removal from wrongful occupation of any person who might have made encroachment on Gaon Sabha property. The learned Additional Commissioner therefore, committed an error by holding that a bona fide question of title was involved in this matter. His recommendation is therefore, rejected and the order of the trial court is maintained that the revisionists should be ejected from the wrongful occupation of the Gaon Sabha land and that they should make good the damages imposed against each one of them. 5. This order will govern Reference Nos. 323 and 324 of 1974-75 Varanasi also.