JUDGMENT Parmatma Singh, Member- This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 10-1-83 passed by the Additional Collector, Etah in revision no. 37 of 1982 arising out of a case under Rule 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Rules. 2. These proceedings were initiated on the report of the Naib Tahsildar dated 16-10-80. Notices in form 49-A were issued for 13.3.81 but the notices were signed on 8-5-81. The Naib Tehsildar reported against Malkhan son of Summer Singh, Dembar son of Chooraman, Teeka Ram son of Chokhey Lal, Chiraunji, son of Purna Singh, Shobha Ram son of Moti Ram and Sonpal son of Dan Sahai, and he separately indicated the damages that were caused to the Gaon Sabha property by the wrongful occupation of these persons. The trial Court ordered the ejectment on 31.1.83. Against that order a revision was preferred before the Additional Collector who rejected the revision. The instant revision is directed against that order of the Collector dated 10-1-83. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and have perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that the notice issued jointly in form 49-A was contrary to law, that the revisionists were in possession over the land in question either by virtue of sale deed or by virtue of a patta, that the instant proceedings could not be started on the complaint of a third person, and that a born fide question of title was involved. 5. The learned D.G.C.(R) submits that notices were issued separately and the wrongful occupation of Gaon Sabha property was proved against all the opposite parties, namely the revisionists and others. 6. From the file of the trial court it is evident that notices were issued separately to Dambar, Chiraunji, Sonpal, Lochan Singh, Malkhan, Shobha Ram and Teeka Ram. The opposite parties filed their joint objections. So, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists that notices in Form 49-A were issued jointly. 7. From the file of the trial court it is evident that notices were issued separately to Dambar, Chiraunji, Sonpal, Lochan Singh, Malkhan, Shobha Ram and Teeka Ram. The opposite parties filed their joint objections. So, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists that notices in Form 49-A were issued jointly. 7. Proceedings under Section 122-B are initiated either on the application of Chairman, member or the Secretary of the land Management Committee or on the report made by the Lekhpal under sub-rule (3) of Rule 115-C or on the report of the local authority concerned or its official referred to in the proviso to sub-rule 5 of Rule 115-C, or on the facts otherwise coming to the notice of the Collector. These proceedings were obviously started by the Collector on facts which came to his notice through the complaint of a third person, and, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionists had no substance that the proceedings could not have been started on the complaint of a third person. The complaint, if any, is just an information about facts on which the Collector could initiate proceedings under Section 122-B, as would appear from Rule 115-D (1) (d). 8. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the Collector was not competent to hear the revision. He has drawn my attention to Section 122-B (1) where under it is the Collector who takes steps for ejectment of persons in unauthorised occupation of gaon sabha property. The relevant Section 122-B reads as under : "122-B (2)-Where the Land Management Committee or the local authority has failed to take action in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) within a period of two months from the date of causing of damage or misappropriation, or, as the case may be, the date of wrongful occupation, the Collector shall proceed to take action in accordance with sub-sections (3) to (4-B). (3) Where the Collector is of opinion that any property referred to in sub-section (1) has been damaged or misappropriated or any person is in occupation of any land referred to in that sub-section in contravention of the provisions of this Act, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for misappropriation not exceeding the amount specified in the notice be not recovered from him, or, as the case may be, why he should not be evicted from such land. (4) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under sub-section(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, be recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue. (4-A) If the Collector is of opinion that the person showing cause is not guilty of causing the damage or misappropriation referred to in the notice under sub-section (3), or, as the case may be, is not in occupation of the land in contravention of the provisions of the Act, he shall discharge the notice. (4-B) If during the course of inquiry in proceedings under this section, the person showing cause has produced any evidence which appears to the Collector to raise bona fide question of title, then the Collector shall, by, order require such person to file a suit for declaration of his title in a court of competent jurisdiction within a period of three months from the date of such order, and stay further proceedings in the meantime." 9. In the instant case the order for eviction was passed by the Tahsildar who is deemed to be Collector by virtue of notification No. 1498/R. III-I-A 3567-59, dated July 25, 1960. This is a peculiar situation wherein the Collector was hearing a revision against his own order which was unjust and improper. The Collector has thus exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law. This is a peculiar situation wherein the Collector was hearing a revision against his own order which was unjust and improper. The Collector has thus exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law. The contention of the learned counsel for the revisionists on this score has force. 10. In their objections the opposite parties have raised a plea of bona fide question of title. No doubt, there was no mention of plot number in the sale deed filed on behalf of Lekhan Singh, Virpal Singh, sons of Sonapal Singh, minors, but the trial court failed to appreciate that the Abadies of villages are not separately numbered. In the village map there are plots which are written as abadi. The proper course open to the trial court was to verify the place on the basis of the surroundings written in the sale deed. During consolidation operations plot no. 105 was still recorded as Abadi. This aspect of the matter requires consideration by the trial court. 11. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the order passed by the Collector dated 10-1-83 was without jurisdiction, and hence, this revision is allowed and the orders of the trial court and that of the Additional Collector are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for a decision afresh in accordance with law.