JUDGMENT M. Saidullah, Member. - This is a reference by the Additional Commissioner dated November 25, 1976 recommending that the revision against the order of Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, First Class, Karakat, district Jaunpur dated June 27, 1975 arising out of proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act read with Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules be allowed and the order of the lower court be set aside. 2. An objection against the recommendation has been filed by the Gaon Sabha assailing the finding recorded by the learned Additional Commissioner in this reference. This objection remained not pressed and therefore was rejected. The learned Additional Commissioner has referred to the ruling reported in 1976 R.D. 208 wherein single Member of this Board held that:- "In the instant case compliance with the mandatory provisions of Rule 115-D are not very convincing. A plain reading of Rule 115-D shows firstly that full description of damages or misappropriation caused or the wrongful occupation made with details of village, Mohalla or ward plot number area boundary property damages or misappropriated and market value thereof sub-rule (a) and period of wrongful occupation damage of misappropriation class of soil of the plot number involved and hereditary rates applicable to them (sub-rule (a) of the above Rule) must be mentioned clearly in the notice to be issued in Z.A. Form 49-A. The notice is on the record and its perusal will go to show that the main ingredient of the notice namely that period of wrongful occupation is missing in this form. The other essential ingredient of Rule 115-D that the collector must make suitable enquiry and obtain such further information as may be necessary on the points mentioned in sub-rules (a)(b)(c) and (d) or Rules 115-D. Here too the record does not show that either any enquiry has been made or any effort has been made to obtain further information regarding the points contained in sub-rules (a)(b)(c) and (d) of Rule 115-D." 3. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 115-D of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules says that the Collector should satisfy himself before the issue of notice in F. 49-A about the allegations of wrongful occupation, damages, misappropriation etc. over the Gaon Sabha property. In this context he should obtain such information and conduct such injury as he deems fit necessary. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 115-D of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules says that the Collector should satisfy himself before the issue of notice in F. 49-A about the allegations of wrongful occupation, damages, misappropriation etc. over the Gaon Sabha property. In this context he should obtain such information and conduct such injury as he deems fit necessary. All this has to be done before the issue of notice in form 49-A but it does not lay down that the period of wrongful occupation or damage or misappropriation etc. should be mentioned in the notice in form 49-A. A reading of rule 115-D of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules makes it clear that there are two stages of the proceedings (1) receipt of report for the issue of notice in Form 49-A and (2) issue of notice in form 49-A against the person alleged to have caused damage, misappropriation wrongful occupation over Gaon Sabha land. Therefore the omission to mention the period of wrongful occupation cannot be deemed to be a fatal legal lacuna. One thing that is to be ensured is that the person against whom the action is contemplated should not be prejudiced in his defence and he should know the allegation against him. That is the only purpose of the issue of notice in Form 49-A and if in meeting the allegation incorporated in Form 49-A and the opposite party contests the notice against him it will be held that no prejudice has been caused merely by the bald omission of the period of occupation in Form 49-A. Therefore, the ruling reported to above does not apply with force to the facts of the present case. In the instant case, however, prejudice has been caused to the opposite party inasmuch as an omnibus notice has been issued which does not contain any specific allegation where it pertains to causing of damage or misappropriation or wrongful occupation of Gaon Sabha property. It was legally incumbent on the Tahsildar to apply his mind and incorporate only such allegation as were germane to the fact ascertained from the report received against the opposite party. The opposite party should have been called upon to meet the specific allegation and not all kinds of allegations as seems to have occurred in the instant case. It was legally incumbent on the Tahsildar to apply his mind and incorporate only such allegation as were germane to the fact ascertained from the report received against the opposite party. The opposite party should have been called upon to meet the specific allegation and not all kinds of allegations as seems to have occurred in the instant case. The Assistant Collector First Class is well advised to apply his mind to the contents of allegations that are sought to be set out in the Form 49-A so that the opposite party comes to know the specific allegations against it and is in a position to meet those allegations. This will ensure that no prejudice will be caused to the opposite party. Therefore I am inclined to accept the recommendation of the learned Addl. Commissioner though for different reasons and allow this revision and send back the case to the trial court with the direction that it should deal with these proceedings in accordance with the provisions of law and disposes it of expeditiously.