JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J.- This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been directed against the order dated 18th September 1978 passed by Board of Revenue and order dated 25th March 1976 passed by Tahsildar. The facts of the case are that in proceedings under Rule 115-C of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules a notice was given to the petitioner in Z.A. Form 49-A. The petitioner contested the notice and alleged that it was illegal and he also alleged that the land is in the bed of river, therefore such land cannot vest in Gaon Sabha and it was alleged that notices are wrong and may be cancelled. 2. The Tahsildar by order dated 25th March 1975 directed the petitioner to be ejected. Petitioner's revisions failed. The revision was dismissed by Additional Commissioner on 14-2-77. Petitioner's revision before the Board of Revenue also failed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for parties. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land did not vest in the Gaon Sabha as it was in the bed of river. He further urged that the notice was illegal as it did not indicate period of occupation. Further the dimension of encroachment of the specific area of the plot was not mentioned in the notice as there were two plot nos. 60/1 and 61/3. As regards arguments about the land being in the bed of the river hence it did not vest in the Gaon Sabha is not acceptable, as under Section 117 of U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act it has been provided as to which type of land would vest in State or Gaon Sabha, namely. It clearly provide that : "Lands whether cultivable or otherwise, except land for the time being comprised in any holding or grove," which had vested in the State would vest in the Gaon Sabha. 4. As regards other submission that the notice under rule 49-A was illegal as it did not specify the particulars of the period of encroachment. A copy of the notice has been filed an annexure 1. It appears that only plots 60 and 61 were mentioned whereas land occupied by petitioner was 61/3 hence even plots have not been correctly specified. Further in the particulars of the notice are blank and other particulars of the notice appear to be missing. A copy of the notice has been filed an annexure 1. It appears that only plots 60 and 61 were mentioned whereas land occupied by petitioner was 61/3 hence even plots have not been correctly specified. Further in the particulars of the notice are blank and other particulars of the notice appear to be missing. It is therefore desirable that the Board of Revenue may consider legality of the notice by looking into original or copy of the notice available on the record. In case particulars specified under law are not to be found in the notice the same would be illegal and liable to be cancelled. 5. The petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order of Board of Revenue dated 19th March 1978 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Board of Revenue for decision afresh in the light of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to cost.