JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - This is a reference dated 18-6-1976 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, recommending that proceedings before the learned trial court against Raghubir Sahai and others, revisionist is regard to plot number 443 be dropped and the damages imposed on them being without jurisdiction be also quashed. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have also perused the record. 3. These were proceedings under Section 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the revisionists for ejectment from plot number 205 (M) area 0.06 and number 443 (M) area 0.01. The whole controversy is about the ejectment from 0.01 area of plot number 443 (M), which is stated a have been covered by the tube-well of the petitioner. The total area of plot number 443 as in Khatauni was 0.08 while according to the village map, it was found to be .10 and on spot inspection, it appeared to be 0.09. The learned Additional Commissioner has rightly placed greater reliance on the khatauni entry. The map only shows the boundaries and slight mistake is likely. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that from the report of the Supervisor Kanungo and the commission's report, it is evident that the land is not identifiable. Although I do not agree with this view because in the survey report to which a site place is attached, the location is well shown. However, I may observe here that the discrepancy found by the Supervisor Kanungo occurred on account of the fact that this survey was not property done, where such a small different of importance appears, it should have been better to choose fixed points on two opposite sides, in this particular case, one more fixed point towards north was necessary. It would have been still more useful to check up the area of the plots surrounding the plot numbers 475 and 443. In such manner the discrepancy in he map could have been corrected. It is only when the boundary between the two plots does not come down from the last survey that it is decided on the basis on actual line of possession. In the present case, it is uncalled for, for the lower court to accept the area of plot number 443 as 0.09 acre and find encroachment of 0.01 acre on the basis of the existing boundary. In the present case, it is uncalled for, for the lower court to accept the area of plot number 443 as 0.09 acre and find encroachment of 0.01 acre on the basis of the existing boundary. In the instant case, area as in Khatauni i.e. 0.08 acre must be accepted as correct. 5. In consequence, the reference is accepted, the revision application is party allowed, the order of the learned trial court relating to damages and ejectment of the revisionist from 0.01 acre of plot number 443 is set aside and the remaining part of the order relating to ejectment from plot number 205 (M) area 0.06 acre is confirmed.