JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member - This is a reference made by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, recommending that the revision filed by Lallu against the order dated August 7, 1972 passed by Tahsildar Chail, district Allahabad in a case under Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A and L.R. Rule, may be rejected. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3. On the basis of the report of the Lekhpal that the revisionist has encroached upon plot No. 860M which was a public path-way and Gram Samaj property, notice in Z.A. Form 49 Ka was issued to the revisionist. After inquiry the Tahsildar held the revisionist to be trespasser and ordered his ejectment. This order has been challenged in the revision. 4. The main ground urged before me is that the notice in Z.A. Form 49 Ka issued in this case is defective and the entire proceedings are vitiated. The learned counsel for the revisionist has cited Tewari v. Gaon Sabha 1975 R.D. 192. in which my learned colleague S.S. Ahmed has observed as follows:- "I cannot agree with the learned D.G.C. The notice in form 49-A must contain the details provided under Section 115-D and if any of the four ingredients which have to be compulsorily incorporated in the notice is missing, it will be perfectly legitimate to infer that the provisions of Rule 115-D have not been complied with and that the non-compliance of these provisions will certainly render the entire proceedings illegal and invalid in the eyes of law." This view has further been reiterated in 1977 R.D. 425, 1978 R.D. 29 and 1979 R.D. 59. To my mind while it is not necessary that the notice in Z.A. Form 49-Ka should incorporate all the details which are to be ascertained in the course of inquiry, it must contain the essential ingredients on the basis of the which a notice can be issued. These essential ingredients include, firstly, the course of information; secondly, the fact whether the land in question is Gaon Sabha property: thirdly, the nature of trespass or damage; and fourthly, the proposed action. 5. Details such as the year in which the trespass began, the boundaries of the area, the amount of damages are not essential prerequisites and these can be even furnished in the course of inquiry. 6. 5. Details such as the year in which the trespass began, the boundaries of the area, the amount of damages are not essential prerequisites and these can be even furnished in the course of inquiry. 6. In the present case the notice in Z.A. Form 49-Ka is highly defective and does not include the essential ingredients. The source of information is not disclosed. It is not even stated whether plot No. 860M is a public path-way or a Gaon Sabha property or a private property. The nature of trespass or damages has not been indicated. No amount of damage has been mentioned. Even the proposed cause of action has not been precisely indicated, lastly the notice has not been signed by the Tahsildar but by some subordinate official. 7. Now the Act and the Rule provided that the notice in Z.A. Form 49-Ka shall be given by the Collector. The authority of the Collector has been further delegated to the Tahsildar by a Government Notification. It is an established principle that delegated authority cannot be further delegated by the person to whom it has been delegated. The authority to issue the notice vests under the law, in the Collector. The authority to issue the notice vests under the law, in the Collector. This authority has been delegated to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar now is not empowered to delegate this authority any further to a subordinate official. Thus the notice in Z.A Form 49Ka is in contravention of the law, the entire proceedings are vitiated on this account. 8. Disagreeing with the recommendation of the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision and set aside the impugned order. The Tahsildar is directed to hear and decide the case afresh after issuing a proper notice in accordance with the law.