JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member- In this reference dated 31-1-1981, the learned Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, has recommended that the order of the learned trial court dated 29-9-1980 be set aside and the case be remanded for issue of a fresh notice after enquiry under rule 115-D of the UPZA & LR Rules and for disposal of the case in accordance with law. The main ground for recommendation is that no boundary of the land was shown in the notice and the land or its area were not precisely known. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. The position found by the learned Commissioner appears to be actually correct. The notice was for plot number 15 (M)/.09 acre while the trial court found the encroachment on .01 acre only. Even the local inspection by the vakil-commissioner was not helpful in determining the area of the plot. Here I must observe that it is not proper for the learned trial court in proceedings under section 122-B of the Act to have the land inspected by a vakil-commissioner for measurement and report which may not be of much help as in the instant case. 3. The responsibility of enquiry under section 122-B of the UPZA & LR Act lies squarely on the trial court and it cannot shirk from this duty, nor should shift this burden to the opposite party or even to his subordinate revenue officers. Such shifting of burden and its insufficient discharge cannot form the basis of ejectment of the opposite party. 4. In view of the above, the reference is accepted, the order of the learned trial court dated 29-9-1980 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial court for a full enquiry under Rule 115-D of the Rules and then it necessary, a fresh notice giving boundary and site plan be issued and the case be decided in accordance with law.