JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated September 30, 1971, the learned Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur, has recommended that the order of the trial court dated January 1, 1974, rejecting the application of Surajdeo to be impleaded. As opposite party in proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules against Muneshwar Singh, be set uside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The learned D.G.C.(R) has argued that when Surajdeo himself claimed to be in possession of plot number 1189/.30 acre, he should have been impleaded as party along with Muneshwar Singh and the reference deserves to be accepted. The objection against the recommendation says that the proceedings under Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules are meant only against those who are entered in Varg-4. 4. The relevant provision is contained in Rule 115-C of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules, which does not speak of entry in Varg-4 but of 'all cases of wrongful occupation of, damage to, and misappropriation of property vested in the Gaon Sabha coming to the notice of Lekhpal'. The Lekhpal performs this duty of reporting all such cases as secretary of the L.M.C. If he fails in this duty, alternative provision is found in Rule 115-D(1) (d) which covers any other source of information. In the instant case, Surajdeo was the best source of information. 5. It is surprising that when Surajdeo himself claimed to he in occupation of the plot in question and prayed for being impleaded as a party, he was not proceeded against under Section 122-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act along with Muneshwar Singh on the ground that there was no report against him. The entry in Varg-4 is only one source of knowledge of the wrongful occupation and the report of Lekhpal is one basis to start proceedings under Section 122-B and to issue notice in form 49-Ka. Other sources of information and accordingly other basis provided for in law must not be neglected and never refused. The order of refusal was clearly failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of the learned trial court. 6. Other sources of information and accordingly other basis provided for in law must not be neglected and never refused. The order of refusal was clearly failure to exercise jurisdiction on the part of the learned trial court. 6. With the above observation, I accept the reference, set aside the order of the learned trial court dated January 1, 1974 and remand the proceedings to the learned trial court with the direction to implead Surajdeo also as a party, proceed against both the persons under Section 122-B and decide the same in accordance with law.