JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Rohilkhand Division, Bareilly, recommending that the revision filed by Pal Singh and Dayal Singh against the order dated March 10, 1970 passed by the Assistant Collector, Pilibhit, in a case under Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules may be allowed to the extent that the ejectment order shall stand, but the amount of damages be reduced from Rs. 9,030/- to Rs. 2,588.50. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. Proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules were taken against the revisionists, Pal Singh and Dayal Singh. Notice in Z.A. Form 49-Ka was issued to them. The notice stated that the revisionists had unlawfully occupied plot Nos. 87, 83 and 140, which were Gaon Sabha property. At first, an ex-parte order was passed against the revisionists, but this was set aside on the request of the revisionist. Thereafter, the revisionists filed the written Statement to the effect that their possession was not adverse but was with the consent of the members of the Land Management Committee. The Assistant Collector after recording the evidence held that the revisionists were trespassers and ordered their ejectment along with payment of Rs. 9,030/- as damages. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are firstly that the amount of damages given in the notice in Z.A. Form 49-Ka was Rs. 310/- and the order of the Tahsildar imposing Rs. 9,030/- as damages was void; secondly that no proper opportunity to produce evidence was given and lastly that the revisionists were mostly living in Punjab to earn their livelihood and could not know the order in time and the delay, if any, may be condoned under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. 5. As the learned Additional Commissioner has heard the revision on merits, even though it was time-barred, the delay in filing the revision shall be deemed to have been condoned. 6. The plea that the revisionists were not given due opportunity to produce evidence must, however, be rejected. The record shows that the revisionists were given fullest opportunity to do so, and had engaged a counsel, Shri Krishna Kumar Jauhari, to represent them and to produce their evidence. Their evidence itself establishes that they were mere trespassers. 6. The plea that the revisionists were not given due opportunity to produce evidence must, however, be rejected. The record shows that the revisionists were given fullest opportunity to do so, and had engaged a counsel, Shri Krishna Kumar Jauhari, to represent them and to produce their evidence. Their evidence itself establishes that they were mere trespassers. They themselves admitted that the land belonged to the Land Management Committee and could not produce either any lease or rent receipts in their favour. The only substance in the revision in that the learned Assistant Collector did not have jurisdiction to enhance the amount of damages. In the notice in Z.A. Form 49-Ka, the revisionists were called upon to pay Rs. 301/- as damages. Thus, in the final order also this amount should not have been enhanced. 7. The result is that I hereby dismiss the revision in so far as ejectment is concerned. The revision is allowed to the extent that the amount of damages is reduced to Rs. 301/-. If the revisionist remains in possession even after this court's order, additional amount of damages at the rates prescribed under the rules may further be realised from him till the date of his actual ejectment.