JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member. - This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act I of 1951 against an order dated 24-3-1979 passed by Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra in Revision No. 261/77-78 against the order dated 26-6-1978 passed by the Assistant Collector Tahsildar, Hathras in case No. 83/77-78 under Section 122-B of Act I of 1951. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the lekhpal of village Kuswa, Pergana and Tahsil Hathras submitted a report to Tahsildar that Sri Ram and Rustam Singh have illegally occupied 4 plots of Gaon Sabha measuring 1-4-10. A notice in form 49-A was issued. Sri Ram and Rustam Singh filed their objections alleging that they have not occupied the Gaon Sabhas land, that plot No. 348 and 503 are the abadi plot of Gaon Sabha ; that the Pradhan of Gaon Sabha has executed leases of plots No. 348 and that persons in whose favour the leases were granted are in occupation of that land ; that plot No. 347 was a chak road which is evident on the spot that plot Nos. 305 and 350 were manure pits where all the villagers keep their manures ; that Sri Ram was elected as Pradhan of the village and that the report has been submitted against him on account of partibandi. The learned trial court rejected the objections of Sri Ram and Rustam Singh and ordered their ejectment and levied a penalty of Rs. 1670/- A revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed the revision on 24-3-1979. This revision is directed against that order of learned Additional Commissioner dated 24-3-1979. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the records. 4. 1670/- A revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed the revision on 24-3-1979. This revision is directed against that order of learned Additional Commissioner dated 24-3-1979. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the records. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the notice in form 49-A was defective and that the courts below have given no finding with regard to the possession of the revisionist ; that the judgment was based on the report of the Naib Tahsildar who was not examined by the court, that the applicants have clearly denied their possession and the damages have been wrongly awarded without any evidence ; that there was no finding about the duration of possession of the applicants ; that the disputed land has already been allotted to other persons that no basis for awarding the damages have been given in the orders of the courts below. From the trial courts file I find that Sri Ram and Rustam Singh have denied their possession over the land mentioned in the report of the lekhpal. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha that the lekhpal was examined by the trial court and he has proved that the opposite parties were in an unauthorised occupation of the Gaon Sabhas land and that proper notice in form 49-A was issued to the opposite parties. From the trial courts file I find that notice in form 49-A was issued to the opposite parties and in response to the notice, the opposite parties appeared before the Assistant Collector and filed their objections, hence the opposite parties have come to know about the allegations against them. The learned counsel for the revisionist has failed to point out the defect in form 49-A which could have vitiated the proceedings under Section 122-B of Act No. 1 of 1951. Once the opposite parties appeared before the Assistant Collector and filed their objections the purpose of issue of a notice in form 40-A was achieved. I, therefore, am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel about the notice under form 49 being defective. Once the opposite parties appeared before the Assistant Collector and filed their objections the purpose of issue of a notice in form 40-A was achieved. I, therefore, am not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel about the notice under form 49 being defective. Lekhpal was examined and he stated that opposite parties were in unauthorised possession of an area of six biswas in plot No. 348 and an area of 5 biswas in plot No. 350 and in an area of 8 biswas in plot No. 303 and an area of 3 biswas in plot No. 505 and an area of 2 biswas 10 biswansi of plot No. 247. Ram Bharosey and Dagauji Ram were produced as witness in support of the objections filed by the opposite parties. Ram Bharosey has stated that erst-while Pradhan Tara Singh had allotted abadi plot No. 348 through auction sale and houses have built over that plot and that the opposite parties have not occupied the chak road and manure pits etc. Under sub-section 4 of Section 122-B of U.P. Act I of 1951 it has been provided that if the Collector finds that the cause shown by the person against whom a notice under form 49-A was issued is insufficient, the Collector will direct that such person shall be evicted from the land and may also direct that the amount of compensation for wrongful occupation should also be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue. The relevant sub-section 4 of Section 122-B reads as under :- "122-B (4) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under subsection (3) fails to show cause within the time specified in the notice or within such extended time as the Collector may allow in this behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be insufficient, the Collector may direct that such person shall be evicted from the land and may, for that purpose, use or cause to be used such force as may be necessary and may also direct that the amount of compensation for damage or misappropriation of the property or for wrongful occupation, as the case may be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue." 5. In the instant case I find that the evidence produced by the opposite parties was not analysed by the trial court and the trial court based its order only on the evidence of lekhpal and the report of Naib Tahsildar who was also not examined by the trial court. In such a matter where the opposite parties are denying their wrongful possession over Gaon Sabhas land, a heavy responsibility is thrown on the court for sifting of evidence produced by the persons showing cause against a notice in form 49-A. In the instant case the trial court failed to discharge its duty so much so that it did not analyse and appraise the evidence and the objections raised by the opposite parties. 6. In view of this the orders passed by the courts below are liable to be set aside. I, therefore, set aside the orders of the courts below and remand the case to the trial court for deciding it after giving due thought to the evidence produced by the revisionist.