JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated 24 7.1979, the learned Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, has recommended that the order of the learned trial court dated 19.4.1979 under Section 122-B of the UPZA & LR Act may be set aside. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the Collector took action in this case within 15 days when he could proceed only after the expiry of two months. He further argued that out of the total area 3 bigha and 7 biswas of the plot, notice was in respect of 5 biswas and 12 dhurs only and the revisionist's application for inspection made on 9.4.1979 was refused. The learned DGC (R) has argued that out of Bhita of Talab belonging to the Gaon Sabha only one part was involved and the boundary was given in the notice. 4. It appears that the villagers complained on 21.1.1979, the lekhpal reported on 9.2.1979. and notice in form 49-A was issued on 23.2.1979. No doubt, the proceedings started much earlier than two months. In view of the rulings reported in 1979 RD 306 and 1966 RD 105 , the trial court did not have jurisdiction to proceed against the revisionist within two months of the date of encroachment. The trial court should have utilised the information but must have waited till the expiry of two months from the date of the reported encroachment and then should have issued notice. Therefore the proceedings would be deemed to have vitiated. 5. Another aspect about damages also considered by the learned first appellate court deserves mention. The damages imposed by the trial court are against Rule 115-F (2) of the UPZA & LR Rules. The land is said to have been used for abadi purposes. Part of it was used for keeping certain articles belonging to the revisionist and part for some construction. But the learned trial court had not assessed damages in proportion to any actual damage caused to the land. The land is said to have been used for abadi purposes. Part of it was used for keeping certain articles belonging to the revisionist and part for some construction. But the learned trial court had not assessed damages in proportion to any actual damage caused to the land. The damages could either be assessed according to Rule 115-F (2) of the Rules which provides that the damages would be 100 times of the amount of rent computed at the sanctioned hereditary rates applicable to the plots concerned per year, or in case of uncultivated land, if greater damage is caused to the land, it could be assessed accordingly. But in no case the price of the land at market rate or otherwise would relate to damages. In the instant case, the learned trial court has assessed the value of the land at market rate to be Rs. 1600/- and this was fixed as damages. As in the present case, no excessive damage to the land was caused and in any case, after ejectment the land would remain as it was, there is no reason why the same formula as for the cultivated land cannot be applied. There is no question of relating damages to the market price of the land encroached upon. Such consideration is entirely a mis-conception of law. If the formula under Rule 115-F (2) of the UPZA & LR Rules was applied, the damages would come to Rs. 186/- only instead of Rs. 1600/-. Therefore, imposition of damages at Rs. 1600/- under mis-conception of law is again an exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the trial court. 6. In view of the above position, the reference is accepted, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the learned trial court dated 19.4.1979 is set aside and the case is remanded for issuing a fresh notice in Form 49-A and deciding the case after hearing in accordance with law. 7. The next date before the trial court is fixed for 4.10.1983.