JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a revision application filed by Ram Bhawan against order of Assistant Collector, 1st Class Tahsil Karvi district Banda dated August 21, 1975 ordering ejectment of the applicant from plot No. 962/1-8-0 and 964/6-15-0 of village Madan, Pargana Karvi district Banda and awarding Rs. 597/- plus Rs. 3,462/- as damages. 2. The learned Additional Commissioner Jhansi Division by his order dated December 14, 1976 has recommended that the order of the court below against deceased, Parsan be quashed and order regarding damages against applicant also be reduced and to dismiss the application regarding his ejectment from plot Nos. 962 and 963. 3. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned D.G.C. (R). 4. Originally the proceeding was regarding plot No. 964 also. The lower court found that this plot did not remain Gaon Sabha property as Sirdari Patta was granted to another person who is recorded on it as Sirdar, therefore the proceeding regarding this plot was dropped. 5. First order against the applicant was passed on November 21, 1969. Revision against it was recommended to Board on April 6, 1970 and the Hon'ble Board on July 20, 1971 had ordered remanding the case for fresh decision that the lower court should enquire whether the applicant was ejected in a suit under Section 209 of the Gaon Sabha from the plots in dispute and whether a declaratory suit of the applicant was pending, if so, their effect? 6. It has been found correct by the courts below that the applicant was ejected from the two plots in question now. 6. It has been found correct by the courts below that the applicant was ejected from the two plots in question now. In the ejectment suit of the Gaon Sabha and Dakhal was also obtained by the then Pradhan per copy of the decree and Dakhaldehani together with statement of the then Pradhan and admission of the applicant in his statement dated November 6, 1969 paper No. 15-A. In view of the ejectment of the applicant in the suit under Section 209 of Act I of 1951 the subsequent declaratory suit filed by the applicant for the disputed plots along with other plots is of no help to the applicant and the argument on his behalf that the proceeding ought to have been stayed as the declaratory suit was pending has got no force because in view of the result of the suit under Section 209 the subsequent declaratory suit cannot create the question of the existence of bona fide dispute of title as title had already been decided in the previous suit under Section 209 against the applicant and the subsequent declaratory suit appears to be only with a view of blocking the passage of this proceeding with ulterior motive and it cannot be said to be with clean hands. 7. It has been argued that there is no notice in Form 49-A on the file, therefore, the proceeding has vitiated. This argument has got no force because the applicant admitted in his objection that notice was given. 8. It was also argued that heirs of Parsan were not impleaded after his death, therefore, the proceeding has vitiated. The applicant himself in his objection had pleaded that parson was his personal servant and had no concern with disputed plots. The applicant himself has not impleaded the heirs of Parsan in this revision. Parsan himself had not filed any revision against the first order, hence this argument has got no force. The order against parsan has been recommended by the learned Additional Commissioner to be set aside which is accepted. 9. The last point which was argued on behalf of the applicant was regarding damages. It was argued that the notice regarding damages was only for Rs. 597/- and the court below further imposed as damages Rs. 3,462/- for the period after the first order which was not legally possible. 9. The last point which was argued on behalf of the applicant was regarding damages. It was argued that the notice regarding damages was only for Rs. 597/- and the court below further imposed as damages Rs. 3,462/- for the period after the first order which was not legally possible. The learned D.G.C. (R.) as argued that there was no prohibition in the Act for imposing damages for the period of pendenti lite and the court below rightly passed order for damages for the period of wrongful occupation after the first order. 10. It was argued on behalf of the applicant in reply that the proceedings under Section 122-B are summary proceedings in nature and it was expected by the legislature that they shall be disposed of expeditiously without delay and its sub-section 3 made it mandatory to issue a notice in Form 49-A for showing cause why compensation for misappropriation not exceeding the amount specified in the notice be not recovered from him and why he should not be ejected from such land, so the compensation cannot be exceeded from the amount specified in the notice and that there was no provision in Section 122-B of Act I of 1951 for imposing damages for the period of litigation for which period the applicant alone is not responsible. He cannot be penalised if the final adjudication in the matter takes long period. 11. The learned D.G.C. in reply argued that the provisions of C.P.C. apply even to the proceedings under Section 122-B of the Act as provided by Section 141 of the C.P.C. procedure regarding suit shall apply to proceedings also and there is no prohibition for determining the mesne profit under Order XX, Rule 12 and mesne profits include compensation or damages as has been held in 1935 Pat. 180. 12. 180. 12. It was further argued by him that the legislature contemplated that in case of wrongful occupation the amount of damages or loss in terms of money shall be assessed for each year for such wrongful occupation or any part thereof at 100 times the amount of rent computed at the sanctioned hereditary rate applicable to the plots concerned in case the occupant of land continues to remain in such wrongful occupation he shall be further liable to pay ?th of the damages so assessed for every months of the continued occupation after the date of the order as provided in Rule 115-F(2) of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules. This provision shows that if occupation continues even after the date of the order exorbitant penalty to be imposed and realised, therefore although the Act and Rules are silent about imposing penalty for the period of litigation the general provisions of C.P.C. should be applied and the penalty imposed for litigation period after the first order by the trial court is justified and the proceedings of Rules 115-C to 115-E of Act I of 1952 shall be and be always deemed to have been made under the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act 1950 as amended by U.P. Land Laws Amendment Act, 1961 as if this section had been enforced on all material dates and shall accordingly continue to be in force unless actually altered or repeat or amended in accordance with the provisions of this Act. This sub-section was substituted by U.P. Act No. 35 of 1976. 13. I have considered the above arguments on behalf of the parties and have perused the provisions of law mentioned above in their arguments. The notice is given in form 49-A under Rule 115-D is to be complied with strictly and it is almost in form of a charge in a criminal case. The provision under Section 122-B read with Rules 115-C to H is punitive in nature, therefore, as in the case of a charge framed in a criminal case for having committed crime punishable under any section of any Act the penalty cannot be imposed more than the penalty provided in the section for which charge was framed. The provision under Section 122-B read with Rules 115-C to H is punitive in nature, therefore, as in the case of a charge framed in a criminal case for having committed crime punishable under any section of any Act the penalty cannot be imposed more than the penalty provided in the section for which charge was framed. In my considered opinion in proceeding under Section 122-B of Act the damages cannot exceed the amount mentioned in the notice in form 49-A. This intention of the legislature is abundantly clear from Section 122-B(3) of the Act which provides for issuing notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for misappropriation not exceeding the amount specified in the notice be not recovered from him.......". Therefore, the general provisions of C.P.C. of Order XXII, Rule 12 etc. cannot be applied and damages or penalty or compensation for the period of litigation cannot be imposed and realised in such proceeding. It is also clear that the provisions of the Act and the Rules mentioned above are silent about the matter in issue. Such silence shall be interpreted in favour of the person against whom such proceedings are drawn because the proceedings are punitive nature. It cannot be contemplated that the legislature forgot to make provision about the penalty to be imposed pendenti lite (for the period of litigation). When it provided for penalty for illegal occupation for the period before the proceeding was started per Section 122-B(3) read with Rule 115-D and it provided for penalty for wrongful occupation continuing after the date of the order at exorbitant rate per Rule 115-F(2) but it forgot to provide for the penalty for the period of litigation. Therefore, in my considered opinion the penalty imposed by the court below for the period from the date of the first order to the date of the last order is not justified as it is not provided by law, hence order regarding it cannot be maintained. Therefore, recommendation regarding it is also accepted. 14. In view of the above, the revision application is partly allowed. The order of the court below regarding Parsan is quashed and regarding damages imposed for the period of pendenti lite, i.e., regarding Rs. 3462/- as further damages imposed is set aside. The revision application in partly dismissed regarding damages of Rs. Therefore, recommendation regarding it is also accepted. 14. In view of the above, the revision application is partly allowed. The order of the court below regarding Parsan is quashed and regarding damages imposed for the period of pendenti lite, i.e., regarding Rs. 3462/- as further damages imposed is set aside. The revision application in partly dismissed regarding damages of Rs. 597/- only as given in notice in form 49-A and regarding ejectment of the applicant from the disputed plot i.e., the order of the court below is confirmed regarding damages of Rs. 597/- and the ejectment of the applicant from the disputed plots.