JUDGMENT P. Singh, Member - This recommendation has been made by the learned Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra for setting aside the trial courts order dated. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 18-8-1979 Lekhpal submitted a report under Rule 115-C against Hakim Singh to the effect that Hakim Singh had committed trespass over plot no. 468, measuring 12 biswas, of Gaon Sabha. Damages were claimed as Rs. 6400/- on the basis of the market value of the land. A notice in form 49-A was issued to Hakim Singh, on 10-3-1980. The Lekhpal was examined on 19-4-1980. The spot inspection was made by the Supervisor Kanungo who reported that opposite party Hakim Singh was using the land for tying his cattle-heads. Hakim Singh did not produce any evidence. The learned commissioner was of the view that the trial court had not discussed the documentary and oral evidence led by the Gaon Sabha. The learned Commissioner was of the view that Hakim Singh had trespassed over the Gaon Sabha land in question and he has suggested that Rs. 6400/- be imposed on him as damages. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record. 4. I find that the opposite party Hakim Singh denied his possession and the report of the Supervisor Kanungo says that he was using the land for tying cattle-heads. It means that Hakim Singh was in unauthorised occupation over the Gaon Sabha land. I, therefore, uphold the order passed for the eviction of Hakim Singh from Gaon Sabha plot no. 468. 5. Regarding the amount of damages, no basis for fixing that amount has been detailed in the order of the learned Commissioner. Before issuing a notice under sub-rule (1) of Rule 115-D, the Collector has to make an inquiry as he deems proper and obtain information on the points enumerated in sub-rule (2), which reads as under "115-D (2) Before issuing a notice under sub-rule (1), the Collector may make such inquiry as he deems proper and may obtain information on the following points - (a) full description of damage or misappropriation caused or the wrong-full occupation made with details of village, mohalla or ward plot number, area, boundary, property damaged or misappropriated and marked value thereof; (b) full address along with fathers name of the persons responsible for the damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation. (c) period of wrongful occupation damage or misappropriation, class of soil of the plot numbers involved and hereditary rates applicable to them ; and (d) value of the property damaged or misappropriation calculated at the prevailing market rate in the locality." 6. In the instant case, it appears that the opposite party Hakim Singh wrongfully occupied the land of Gaon Sabha and there is nothing on record to show that irreparable loss has occurred to Gaon Sabha. The amount of damages has to be assessed keeping in view the provisions contained in rule 115-F (2) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules. I am, therefore, of the view that the damages should be assessed on the basis of the land revenue at the sanctioned hereditary rates applicable to the plot concerned. 7. Consequently, this revision is partly allowed, the order of the learned trial court dropping the proceedings is set aside and the opposite party Hakim Singh shall be evicted from the laud in dispute. The trial court is however, directed to assess the amount of damages keeping in view the provisions of rule 115-F, sub-clause (2) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules.