JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - This revision petition was filed by Hanuman against the judgment dated 5-1-1982 by the learned Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, dismissing the revision petition against the order dated 18-3-1980 by the learned trial court for ejectment and damages for Rs. 1952/-. 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 finding by the learned trial court was against evidence, that the possession of the revisionist even on the basis of the village records could not be for more than one year i.e. 1386-F, that the circle rate being Rs. 2.44, it had to be multiplied by 100 without doubling it and damages more than Rs. 244/- are unwarranted. The learned DGC (R) has argued that the lekhpal stated about the unauthorised occupation of the revisionist from 1383-F and supported it with entry in 1386-F khasra. There is no explanation for doubling the rent at circle rate. 4. It is also in evidence that the revisionist denied his possession and the Pradhan stated about possession of Jageshar on the land in suit. So Jageshar should also have been sent notice and proceeded against as supported by the ruling reported in 1982 RD 96 cited by the learned counsel. 5. I am, therefore, of the view that the learned trial court failed to exercise jurisdiction by not issuing notice in his name proceeding against Jageshar also, for in that case it could be properly decided who of the two Hanuman or Jageshar was in unauthorised occupation. The learned trial court also could not presume possession for any period other than 1386-F for the lekhpal could not depose about possession without supporting his statement with qabiz entries in the records or other records made under rules. Thus the whole order of the learned trial court, ejectment of Hanuman alone and imposition of damages in excess of Rs. 244/- cannot be upheld. 6. Thus the whole order of the learned trial court, ejectment of Hanuman alone and imposition of damages in excess of Rs. 244/- cannot be upheld. 6. Accordingly, the revision is allowed, the order of the learned trial court dated 18-3-1980 is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial court for issuing another notice to Jageshar in form 49-A, after due enquiry, in this very case and then after hearing to decide who was in unauthorised occupation and for what period, after duly considering the documentary evidence in the village records about the period of unauthorised occupation and to decide the case in accordance with law, keeping the above observation in view. The next date before the trial court for hearing will be 12-12-1983.