JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Padam Singh against the order dated April 13, 1972 passed by the Tahsildar Bilhaur, 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. One Mangali Prasad gave an application to the Tahsildar to the effect that the revisionist Padam Singh was digging a tube-well in the Gaon Samaj land plot No. 208 which adjoint his house. On his report, the Tahsildar issued the noticed in ZA Form 49-Ka. The revisionist filed an objection to the effect that he had his old well over this land before the abolition of Zamindari and in order to improve it he had got it bored and was constructing a tube-well on the same site. He further stated that Mangali Prasad had filed a civil suit in the court of Munsif Haveli for an injunction against the construction of the tube-well and having failed there had filed the application before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar has held the revisionist to be a trespasser and had ordered his ejectment alongwith payment of Rs. 100/- as damages. This order has been challenged in the present revision. 4. The ground taken in the revision are firstly, that the disputed well existed on the spot from before abolition of Zamindari and before consolidation and no compensation having been awarded, the well did not vest in Gaon Sabha or the State; secondly, that the trial court has completely ignored the CH form 5 filed by the revisionist and has erred in holding that there was no proof of the well on the disputed plot, thirdly, that the case was one involving local inspection and the trial court acted illegally in not getting the site inspected, and fourthly, that the trial court did not consider the fact that the revisionist had every right to convert his Kachcha well into a tube-well. 5. The record shows that the present proceedings were started not on the complaint of the Land Management Committee or any report from the Lekhpal, but on the complaint of a private individual. 5. The record shows that the present proceedings were started not on the complaint of the Land Management Committee or any report from the Lekhpal, but on the complaint of a private individual. Further, this individual had already taken his case to the Civil Court and having failed to get an injunction from the Civil Court has now approached the Tahsildar. The learned Additional Commissioner has conceded that plot No. 208 whose old number is 211 was the plot of the revisionist before consolidation operations. The revisionist produced ample oral evidence to show that his old Kachcha well existed at this very site. Mangali Prasad has of course produced oral evidence to the effect that the well of the revisionist did not exist at this site before. However, the dispute is essentially reduced to a dispute between two individuals. Neither the Gaon Sabha nor the Land Management Committee have been impleaded in the trial court and no notice was issued to them in the trial court. Further, in view of the conflicting oral evidence, the trial court should have made a spot inspection but no such spot inspection appears to have been made. Thus, the order of ejectment passed by the learned Tahsildar is premature and cannot be sustained. 6. The result is that I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order. The learned Tahsildar is directed to decide the case afresh after impleading the Gaon Sabha Land Management Committee as a party and after making the spot inspection.