JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is a revision application filed by Gaon Sabha against order dated 17-8-1977 passed by Tahsildar/Assistant Collector Ist Class Tahsil Garotha, District Jhansi in a case u/s 122B of Act I of 1951 regarding plot no. 4441/2. 09. 2. The Ld. Additional Commissioner Jhansi Division by his order dated 30-11-1977 has recommended to allow the revision application and to set aside the order of Ld. trial court and to pass order regarding eviction of the opposite parties and to impose damages of Rs. 1000/-. 3. I have heard that Ld. counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. 4. Notice in form 49-A was given regarding plot no. 4441.09 and 442-10. Objection was filed that it was their ancestral abadi and was Khandhar and wall was constructed and Gaon Sabha got no jurisdiction. The notice was given regarding plot no. 4441 but the order is regarding plot no. 441 M. 09 and the trial court held that plot no. 441M was old khandhar and a new house was built and due to enmity of Pradhan proceeding was started and 442M. 10 was Nazul land and the trial court held that it has got no jurisdiction about ejectment regarding Nazul Land. 5. The order is dated 17-8-1977 of the trial court. The trial court did not adhere to the amended provisions of sub section 4-B of Section 122B regarding plot no. 441M regarding which no notice in form 49-A was given and for this reason alone its order cannot be allowed to stand. The opinion of trial court that it has got no jurisdiction about Nazul land is correct because Nazul land is Central Government property. It cannot vest in the State Government under the provision of Act I of 1951. Order of the trial court regarding plot no. 441M.09 is vitiated for want of notice and proceeding cannot be dropped. The trial court to proceed under amended sub-section 4-B. 6. The argument on behalf of the opposite party that the order dropping the proceeding is final and cannot be questioned even in revision. Accordingly sub-section 4-B has got no force. It is final and is not appealable but, It cannot be questioned under revisional jurisdiction by the Board. 7. The recommendation of the Ld. The argument on behalf of the opposite party that the order dropping the proceeding is final and cannot be questioned even in revision. Accordingly sub-section 4-B has got no force. It is final and is not appealable but, It cannot be questioned under revisional jurisdiction by the Board. 7. The recommendation of the Ld. Additional Commissioner in view of the above is not accepted as such because if local inspection was not made the case requires to be recorded. The Ld. Additional Commissioner should not have appraised the evidence and ought not to have come to a different conclusion if evidence was not properly appraised by the trial court the case required to be recorded. 8. In view of the above, the revision application is allowed and the order of the trial court is quashed and the case is remanded to the trial court to proceed afresh after giving fresh notice in form 49-A regarding proper plot number with all such full particulars with boundary etc. Allowing objection if any to be filed and affording opportunity to the parties to lead their evidence. If bonafide dispute of title is involved then provisions of sub-section 1(c) Section 122B of Act I of 1951 should be adhered.