JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member- This revision petition was filed by the State of U.P. and Gaon Sabha against the judgment and order dated 25.2.1980 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad confirming the judgment and order dated 30.6.1977 by the learned trial court but with the only modification that the unauthorised occupation was permanently regularised at Rs. 250/- in place of Rs. 50/- only settled by the learned trial court, while dropping the proceeding u/s 122-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The learned DGC (R) for the applicant has argued that the order of the learned trial court dated 30.6.1977 as well as the order of the learned Additional Commissioner dated 25.2.1980 are both without jurisdiction because when the unauthorised occupation on the Gaon Sabha land was proved, there is no discretion left to the court about the ejectment order, that the courts below had no jurisdiction to drop the proceeding for ejectment, that the damages could be assessed separately for the period of unauthorised occupation, that the learned Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to regularise the unauthorised occupation, on the Gaon Sabha land or even to modify of his own accord the amount of damages without any prayer for the same and that the learned Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to allow the revision even partly, he could either dismiss the revision petition entirely or could make a reference. He further argued that both the orders of the courts below deserve to be set aside. The learned counsel for the opposite party argued that in the instant case, Rule 115-P (2) applies which relates to damages in of a situation where the damage was not capable of being repaired and the amount of damages would be at 100 times tho circle rate, in support, he cited a ruling reported in 1980 RD 16 and further argued that in a case where the unauthorised occupation continues then damages at the same rate would be fixed for all period past or future. He further argued that the land in dispute was utilised for a tube-well which being abadi, the revisionist could not be ejected. He further argued that the land in dispute was utilised for a tube-well which being abadi, the revisionist could not be ejected. The learned DGC (R) argued that Rule 115-F (2) of the U.P.Z A. & L.R. Rules applies where the status quo ante cannot be restored and it is a permanent damage. 4. I agree that the encroachment on the Gaon Sabha land whether it is agricultural land or abadi site, cannot be deemed to be a damage of permanent nature. In fact, the provision under Rule 115-F (2) is in two parts the first part is contained in the first sentence and the second part is the second sentence. The third sentence of this sub-rule provides that in case of unauthorised occupation continuing the person shall be liable to pay l/8th of the damage for one year for every month of the continuing unauthorised occupation after the date of the order. It also clarified that the damage of a permanent nature is only in such cases where the property of the Gaon Sabha has been permanently damaged like cutting down trees or grass or destruction of other property, Mis-understanding was caused by mixing up these various provisions under sub-rule 115-F (2). Therefore, it must be held that the unauthorised occupation on the Gaon Sabha land whether agricultural or abadi site, even by construction of any type, can never be deemed to be a damage of the land of permanent nature. 5. The second mis-understanding is that the tube-well is being deemed abadi. It is the settled law that temporary constructions made on the agricultural plots for keeping harvest or manure pits or for creating of agricultural improvement are included in the agricultural development of land and do not turn the land into abadi. A tube-well is no doubt an agricultural improvement and there is no question of the land being considered abadi. 6. In the instant case, as would be clear from going through the orders, the courts below have exceeded their jurisdiction because they have not fixed damages for unauthorised occupation for a definite period but they have regularised the unauthorised occupation and usurping the Gaon Sabha land by the opposite party at a premium of Rs. 50/- or Rs. 250/-. 6. In the instant case, as would be clear from going through the orders, the courts below have exceeded their jurisdiction because they have not fixed damages for unauthorised occupation for a definite period but they have regularised the unauthorised occupation and usurping the Gaon Sabha land by the opposite party at a premium of Rs. 50/- or Rs. 250/-. A premium for a certain piece of land is related to its price or the market value and cannot take the place of damages to be charged per year which have been provided u/s 122-B of the Act. 7. It is also found that both the courts below have not given any finding that the Gaon Sabha land was under unauthorised occupation. In fact, the courts below agreed that there was unauthorised occupation but in view of the installation of the pumping-set, they just considered it justifiable to regularise the unauthorised occupation. For such regularisation, the courts below had no jurisdiction at all nor was such regularisation envisaged or provided u/s 122-B of the Act. At this stage, I should also clarify that the damages must be calculated in accordance with rules, either at 100 times the circle rate or in proportionate to loss of rent to the Gaon Sabha for the particular piece of land in question. The damages cannot relate to the total value of the land because as observed above, the damages per year are not the same as premium for the land. 8. Since there is no two opinions about the unauthorised occupation of the Gaon Sabha land being there, it does not appear necessary to remand the case merely for passing order of ejectment. However, the amount of damages have to be calculated in accordance with rules. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed, the orders of the two courts below dated 30.6.77 and 25.2.80 respectively are hereby set aside and the opposite parties Raja Ram and Sri Ram are ordered to be ejected from the land in dispute. The case is further remanded to the learned trial court for calculation of damages in accordance with rules. 9. The next date before the trial court is fixed for 2.11.1983.