JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a revision application of Ram Baran, Daya Ram and Ram Subhawan against order dated May 14, 1976 passed by Tahsildar/Assistant Collector, 1st Class, Bikapur, district Faizabad in a case under Section 122-B of Act I of 1951 regarding land of village Sherpur, Pargana Pachchim Rath, Tahsil Bikapur, district Faizabad ordering ejectment of the applicants from plot No. 107 and imposing Rs. 200/- as damages. 2. The learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division by his order dated November 24, 1976 had dismissed the revision application. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned D.G.C. (R.), Faizabad and have perused the file. 4. The lekhpal reported on December 18, 1975 that the applicants were taking illegal possession on said Gaon Sabha land area 3 Biswas 10 dhurs. Notice was issued in form 49-A. Objection was submitted that it was defective. It was also alleged that the L.M.C. had allotted the land to them, therefore, action was not maintainable against them. 5. The lekhpal stated that he does not know whether any allotment was made in the favour of the applicant or not. Two receipts dated September 6, 1969 were filed which were issued, by Pradhan in the name of Daya Ram and Mahadeo. Copy of resolution dated July 6, 1967 was also filed to show that L.M.C. allotted 1 biswa 16 dhur of land from plot No. 107 to Mahadeo and Daya Ram each for constructing house. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that as the land was allotted to the applicants by the said resolution they cannot be ejected unless the pattas are cancelled. Reliance has bee placed on Jugla Saran v. Gaon Sabha, 1977 R.D. 352. In reply it was argued by the learned D.G.C. Faizabad that according to Section 28(C) Sub-section (2) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act by any court or authority as the patta was granted by the L.M.C. to the relations of Pradhan without permission in writing of the Collector as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 28(c) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. 6. 6. In my considered opinion the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 28(C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act is not applicable as the applicants on the basis of a patta although granted in contravention of provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 28(C) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act are not asking to enforce it they are only defending their claim in an auction taken against them. The wordings of sub-section (2) of the said orders are as follows: "No court or other authority shall enforce at the instance of any person a claim based upon a transaction in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1)." The said sub-section prohibits enforcement of the claim based upon a transaction in contravention of the provisions of sub-section (1). In the present case the applicants are not asking to enforce the claim based upon a transaction although in contravention of the provision in sub-section (1) of that Act. They cannot be held to be trespassers. The Pattas cannot be said to be void ab initio unless the Pattas are got cancelled under the relevant provisions of Act, I of 1951, the applicants cannot be ejected in a proceeding under Section 122-B, because their bona fide title is fully established by the copy of the resolution and payment of dues per two receipts filed by them. Therefore, the Tahsildar exercised jurisdiction not vested in him, in proceeding with the case the proceeding was not maintainable unless the Pattas were got cancelled. 7. Furthermore as the notice in Zamindari Abolition Form 49-A is not on the file, an objection was raised that it was defective, the presumption is against the prosecuting authority if it is on the file. Therefore, for the defects in the notice in form 49-A the whole proceeding is vitiated as has been held in 1970 R.D. page 156, 1977 R.D. 197 and 1977 R.D. 181. 8. In view of the above, the revision application is allowed. The recommendation is not accepted for remanding the case to the trial court and the order in question is quashed.