JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 22-11-1978 by the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut rejecting the revision against the learned trial court order dated 31-3-1979 for ejectment and damages. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. The argument that the plot number 2321 area 4-2-10 of which 0-11-4 is said to have been, unauthorisedly occupied by the revisionist, belongs to Zila Parishad, is not shown by any evidence. The area is entered as Madarsa but it appears that the learned trial court did not properly enquire into the matter. It should have obtained khatauni extract to see in whose name the plot is recorded. If the entry is in varg 1 or 2 it would be bhumidhari or sirdari of some land-holder if in varg-3, an asami of the Gaon Sabha and if in varg-4, an unauthorised occupant of the Gaon Sabha land. The learned trial court should understand that it is his own duty to complete the enquiry and merely asking the opposite party to show cause is not sufficient. 4. Even the revisionist has not proved if the plot is bhumidhari of Zila Parishad. So, the ruling cited 1983 RD 79 does not apply. Besides this the revisionist has not made Zila Parishad a party to the revision. His claim that the land is of Zila Parishad and non-impleadment of Zila Parishad, prima facie made this revision non-maintainable, though the claim itself is found wrong. 5. Apart from the above, the argument that in case of land of Zila Parishad, the proceedings under Section 122-B (3) could be started by the Collector at the instance of the Zila Parishad is against the provision in Section 122-B (2) which provides that the Collector shall take action when the LMC or the local authority fail to take action. Obviously, in such case when the LMC or local authority fails, the question of taking action at the instance of any such body does not arise, otherwise sub-section (3) would lose its meaning and the intention of the legislature would be frustrated. 6. The argument that the land was already allotted to Risal Singh revisionist by the LMC has not been established by any satisfactory evidence. 6. The argument that the land was already allotted to Risal Singh revisionist by the LMC has not been established by any satisfactory evidence. The learned Additional Commissioner has mentioned that the resolution of licence shown to him do not mention any plot numbers. Besides chakbandi proceeding have been held in this village and if the revisionist had any rights these could be evident from the chakbandi khatauni. But the learned trial court is found not to have determined the prima facie ownership of the land. It must be understood that there is no bar to taking up proceedings under Section 122-B (3) to (4-D) by the learned Trial Court whether the land belong to he Gaon Sabha or a local body like Zila Parishad or a Town Area etc. Also the calculation of damages Rs. 3500/- is not available, the loss of value of trees and damages calculated at circle rate should have been clearly stated and added to arrive at the total compensation to be charged. 7. The ruling reported in 1981 RD 29 would apply when the land was lot of the Gaon Sabha or local body but it does not appear to have been established that in the chakbandi the revisionist got any rights declared. In any case, the trial court should complete the enquiry now that a remand has appeared necessary.and arbitrarily fixed damages cannot be upheld. 8. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed, the order of the learned rial court dated 31-3-1978 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to it or further enquiry and to decide the case in accordance with law.