JUDGMENT G.S. Tewari, Member - These are eight connected references arising out of as many cases under Rule 115-C, U.P.Z.A. and L.R, Rules. 2. Proceedings started on the Lekhpal's report that the revisionists had taken unauthorised possession of disputed land which was Gaon Sabha property. The revisionists case, however, was that they had not been in possession of the land in question nor had any concern with it and that proceedings were launched because the Lekhpal had been on inimical terms with them. The trial court ordered the ejectment of the revisionists and also imposed damages. The Additional Commissioner has recommended that the revisions may be rejected. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and the learned District Government Counsel (Revenue) and have perused the record. 4. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the revisionists, and which also did not receive any criticism from the District Government Counsel was that notices issued in Form No. 49-A in all the cases did not mention any damages and since right from the beginning the revisionists had disclaimed possession there was no justification or basis for the trial court to have imposed any damages. This contention is found true as in none of notices in Form 49-A there is any mention of damages. As such the revisionists cannot be held liable to pay damages. Both the courts have, however, concurrently held that land in question if is Gaon Sabha property and since the revisionists lay no claim to it, obviously they should have no grievance by order of ejectment, as has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionists. 5. The revisions are thus partly allowed to the extent that damages imposed against the revisionists in each of the cases are waived and the impugned order of the trial court dated 30-1-1973 shall stand modified accordingly. 6. This order shall govern all the eight connected References nos. 1584 to 1571F of 1974-75 Muzaffarnagar.