JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - In this reference dated 5-4-1977, the learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut has recommended that the damages may be reduced to Rs. 1632/- only as given in the notice and the ejectment order may be maintained in respect of plots given in para 5 of the referring order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that the State Government was a necessary party in this enquiry because it is no where provided. Rather, in the revision petition the State being the owner of the land had to be impleaded as a party and so the revision is rendered incompetent for want of impleadment of necessary party. 4. The learned counsel has also argued that the land falls within the Municipal Board, Ghaziabad and vide notification no. 7980 (1)/1-A, 1483-53 dated 11-8-1954 the land management had been transferred to the Municipal Board Ghaziabad and so no case u/s 122-B of the Act could be started on the application of the LMC or lekhpal. However, the provision of law relied upon by the learned counsel are the amended provision effective after 3-6-1981 and even here in section 122-B sub-section (2) the words 'or otherwise' allow action to be taken by the Assistant Collector on information received otherwise than as provided under sub-section (1). But the important point is that this case was started on the report of the lekhpal dated 17-2-1975 when the new provision was not available and according to section 122-B (3) as applicable then, the Collector had to take action only when the LMC or the local-authority had failed to take action and for the proceedings started by the Collector, there was no restriction of source from which the information could come about the unauthorised occupation or damage to Goan Sabha property. The Collector was competent to issue notice whether the property belonged to the Gaon Sabha or a local-authority. Therefore, there was no defect in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial court. 5. I. therefore, agree with the learned DGC (R) that the Municipal Board being not made a party in the revision also renders the revision incompetent. The Collector was competent to issue notice whether the property belonged to the Gaon Sabha or a local-authority. Therefore, there was no defect in the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned trial court. 5. I. therefore, agree with the learned DGC (R) that the Municipal Board being not made a party in the revision also renders the revision incompetent. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the applicant that in a revision no parties other than those in the trial court are needed because in these summary proceedings in the trial court there is only one party which is proceeded against and the court takes action to safeguard the property in the management of the Gaon Sabha or Municipal Board, in reality belonging to the State and so in revision by the party proceeded against, the State as well as the Gaon Sabha or local-authority have to be impleaded as opposite parties. If the contention of the learned counsel was accepted, there would be no opposite party at all in the revision in the trial court the State or the Gaon Sabha or the local authority are not indeed any parties and the entire responsibility lies with the trial court to carry out enquiry as provided under law. 6. However, I agree with the considerations and calculations by the learned first appellate court for these were omission by the learned trial court and a wrong calculation is not included in a proper exercise of jurisdiction. The reference is, accordingly, accepted and the order of the learned trial court dated 19-1-1976 is modified to the extent indicated in paras 5 and 6 of the referring order dated 5-4-1977 by the learned Additional Commissioner. The rest of the revision petition is hereby rejected.