JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - This is a reference dated 9-12-1975 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, in a revision application against the order dated 1-3-1975 by the learned trial court directing ejectment of the revisionist and imposing damages under section 122-B of Act I of 1951. The recommendation is that a bonafide question of title being involved, the Tahsildar/Asstt. Collector Ist Class had no-jurisdiction to decide the case under section 122-B, and the impugned order be set aside and proceedings be dropped. 2. I have heard the learned DGC(R) and have also perused the record. None was present for the revisionist. 3. This is a peculiar recommendation because no bona fide question of title has been argued by the opposite parties before the learned trial court and even in such case, there is provision to stay the proceedings and require the opposite party to file a suit for declaration of title within three months. Admittedly, the order dated 1-3-1975 was an ex-parte order. The opposite parties had not appeared before the learned trial court in spite of notice. If they felt aggrieved and claimed no proper services, they could have applied for restoration of the case. Thus no question of any title of the opposite parties arose for consideration. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner has considered the same report dated 26-4-1974 of the Supervisor Kanungo as was considered by the Tahsildar or start the proceedings under section 122-B. The report makes it clear that the Lekhpal appeared to have fictitiously recorded that on the basis of the order dated 20-5-1968 in case no. 317, the names of Faujdar and Nauji he recorded as sirdar on plot number 133 and 131, because in the record-room, no such case file was available. In the proceedings under section 122-B, due opportunity was given to the opposite parties and they could file review of the C.O's. order but they did not do so. When the opposite parties did not contest, it could not be said that they claimed title and there was a bonafide question of title involved in the case. 5. In the circumstances, the whole basis for the revision goes off the recommendation by the learned Commissioner is liable to be rejected. 6. Accordingly, the reference is rejected and the revision application is dismissed with courts.