JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Shiv Ratan against the order dated September 19, 1972 passed by the Tahsildar Bhognipur district Kanpur in a case under Section 122-B, UPZA and LR Act, may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. On the report of the Lekhapal that the revisionist Shiv Ratan, Manna and Soney Lal had trespassed over Gaon Sabha plot No. 790-M, a notice in ZA Form 49-Ka was issued to them. Though the notice was served only on Shiv Ratan, all the three persons appeared in the Court of the Tahsildar and filed a joint written statement claiming that a bona fide question of title was involved as they were in cultivatory possession of the land for thirty years. The learned Tahsildar after enquiry has ordered the revisionists to vacate the land and to pay Rs. 1812/- as damages for the period of occupation. This order has been challenged in the present revision. 4. The grounds taken in the revision are, firstly, that the learned Assistant Collector has acted illegally and with material irregularity in ordering ejectment of the revisionist and imposing damages; secondly, that a bona fide question of title was involved; thirdly that no proper motive in form 49-Ka was issued; fourthly, that the notice was issued against a deed person and the proceedings are entirely illegal and without jurisdiction; fifthly that the revisionist has been in possession over the disputed land from before the abolition of Zamindari and had perfected title under Section 210 of the UPZA and LR Act; sixthly that the order passed by the learned Tahsildar is no order in the eyes of law as he has not discussed the oral and documentary evidence and has not recorded findings on points material to the case, and lastly, that the question of damages has not been correctly decided. 5. Of these grounds, there is substance only in the lase ground which relates to the question of damages. The notice in ZA Form 49-Ka does not mention any damages. Further, in the final order, the basis on which damages have been calculated has not been given. Thus the revision must succeed insofar as the damages are concerned. 6. There is no substance in the remaining grounds. The notice in ZA Form 49-Ka does not mention any damages. Further, in the final order, the basis on which damages have been calculated has not been given. Thus the revision must succeed insofar as the damages are concerned. 6. There is no substance in the remaining grounds. It has not been shown that any of the persons to whom the notice in ZA Form 49-Ka was issued was dead or has died during the course of these proceedings. All three, Shiv Ratan, Manna and Soney Lal had filed a joint written statement in the court of the Tahsildar. The notice in ZA Form 49-Ka does not suffer from any material irregularities. The learned Tahsildar, has applied the correct procedure and has considered the entire oral and documentary evidence. His findings are quite sound. Though a bona fide question of title was claimed, not the slightest evidence was produced to support this claim. Thirty years' cultivatory possession would mean that such cultigvatory possessions started during the Zamindari days yet neither the Zamindar or his agent nor any lease granted by the Zamindar nor any rent receipts have been produced. Further, the entries in the revenue records do not support this claim. The revisionists have only filed copies of Khasra of 1366 and 1367 Faslis in their support. Even the entries of these Khasras have been held to be manipulated by the learned Tahsildar. According to him, the unasuthorised occupation has commenced in 168 Fasli. Even if it be held that such occupation commenced in 1366 Fasli, it will not confer any rights. It may be observed that there is a common tendency to claim a bona fide question of title and to allege cultivatory possession from before the abolition of Zamindari without producing any evidence to this effect. As the law stands at present, no cultivatory possession over land vesting in the Gaon Sabha commencing after the abolition of Zamindari without the consent of the State or the Gaon Sabha would confer any rights on the occupant. In such a case, the occupant would remain a trespasser in the eyes of law and no bona fide question of title can be claimed. 7. The result is that I hereby dismiss the revision insofar as ejectment is concerned. The revision is partly allowed to the extent that no damages shall be charged from the revisionists.