JUDGMENT P.C. Saxena, Member. - This is a reference dated 15.10.1973 made by the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra, in respect of the revision no. 373 of 1370-71/Agra. 2. The facts are briefly that proceedings under section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act were initiated against the present revisionist who was alleged to have removed a branch of a Mahua tree over the land in dispute. The case was contested by him claiming that the tree had been planted by his ancestors and was not the property of the Gram Sabha. 3. The trial court held the land on which the tree stood belonged to the Gram Sabha and awarded damages amounting to Rs. 105/-. 4. A revision against this judgment has been recommended for rejection by the Additional Commissioner who has agreed with the finding of the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has cited rulings of the Board of Revenue reported in 1976 R.D. 160 and 1978 R.D. 29, in support of his contention that there can be no presumption that a tree standing on Gram Sabha land is the property of the Gram Sabha. 6. With all respect, I find myself unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Members in the rulings cited. Where land belongs to any party, there is a legal presumption that any tree standing thereon belongs to that very party. In the present instance, the claim that ancestors of the revisionist had planted the tree would not by itself lead to the conclusion that he is the owner of the tree. The view taken by the lower courts is therefore, correct. 7. Learned counsel has, however, also pointed out that in proceedings before the trial court the evidence of the revisionist was taken first and that of the Gaon Sabha subsequently. He has cited a ruling reported in 1976 R.D. 208, in support of his contention that Rule 115-E of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act provides that the evidence of the Gram Sabha must be taken first and that failure to do so would vitiate the proceedings. 8. I am unable to agree with the view expressed in the ruling cited. A perusal of the relevant Rule does not lead to the conclusion that the law specifically provides that the Gram Sabha must lead its evidence first. 9. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed.