JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member- This revision has been filed under Section 333 of U.P. Act I of 1951 against the order of Tahsildar dated 21-5-81 in case no. 73 under Section 122-B of the Act and also against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Agra Division, dated 9-6-83 in revision no. 74/82-83 Alli and others v. Gaon Sabha and others. 2. The Lekhpal reported on 11-3-80 that Alli and others wrongfully occupied plot no. 27-M (area 3 Biswas) and no. 44 (area 5 biswas) belonging to Gaon Sabha. On 3-4-80 a notice in form 49-A was issued. On 20-1-81 objections were filed by the opposite parties (revisionists) alleging that they had committed no trespass on the Gaon Sabha land. The trial court ordered rejectment of the objectors from the Gaon Sabha Land on 21-5-81. Against that order, a revision was preferred before the Additional Commissioner who dismissed the revision on 9-6-83. The present revision has been filed against that order of the Additional Commissioner. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the Lekhpal was not allowed to have been cross-examined by the objectors and there is no khasra entry indicating wrongful occupation of Gaon Sabha land by the revisionists, that, the revisionists had not encroached upon any Gaon Sabha land, and that notice in form 49 A was defective. He has attracted my attention to 1981 (2) R.D. 180, Hansraj v. Gaon Sabha, and says that when the objectors denied their possession over the Gaon Sabha land no damages could have been imposed on them in view of Rajaswa Anubhag 12 G.O. No. 8639/75-Sa-12-2884/75 dated 10-9-75 and B.O. No. 11693/G-5-639/73 dated 27-10-75. 5. The learned trial court has held that in spite of opportunity being given to the objectors, neither they adduced any evidence in support of their contentions nor cross-examined the Lekhpal who was produced as a witness on behalf of Gaon Sabha. It has also held that the objectors trespassed on Gaon Sabha land. Mere denial of trespass by the objectors cannot belief the statement of Lekhpal who has proved the wrongful occupation of Gaon Sabha property by the objectors. The objectors were given adequate opportunity for adducing their evidence and they failed to adduce any evidence. It has also held that the objectors trespassed on Gaon Sabha land. Mere denial of trespass by the objectors cannot belief the statement of Lekhpal who has proved the wrongful occupation of Gaon Sabha property by the objectors. The objectors were given adequate opportunity for adducing their evidence and they failed to adduce any evidence. I, therefore, do not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists that objectors were not allowed to cross-examine the Lekhpal. The objectors cannot claim the benefit of the G.O. referred to above as their wrongful possession has been established by the evidence on record. I, therefore, uphold the orders of the courts below. 6. In view of the above, the revision is hereby dismissed.