JUDGMENT Jitendra Prasad, Member - This revision has been preferred by Keola Prasad against the order dated February 1, 1983 passed by the learned Commissioner, Allahabad dismissing the revision and confirming the order under Section 122-B of Act I of 1951. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for either side and perused the record. 3. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the notice given to the revisionist was illegal and defective for want of actual plot number, its situation and year of trespass and that he was in possession on plot No. 395/3. The trial court has not discussed the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the revisionist and passed the impugned order. He cited ruling reported in A.I.R. 1970, p. 525 176 R.D. 208, 1980 R.D. 211 and 1984 R.D. 258 in support of his argument. 4. The learned D.G.C. (R.) while supporting the orders of the learned lower courts submitted that plots No. 395/2 and 395/3 are quite separate plots as shown in Khasra extracts of these plots. He further submitted that plot No. 392/2 area 2 Big. 15 Bis is into unauthorised possession of the revisionist and he should be rejected and is liable to pay the damages imposed by the learned trial court. 5. A through scrutiny of the notice issued in form 49-Ka reveals that the said notice is not defective since all the necessary particulars required have been incorporated therein. The learned Commissioner has therefore, rightly held that the notice in Form 49-ka does not suffer from any illegality and there is no justification to interfere with the imposed order and hence, he rejected the revision. This court also does not see any material ground to interfere into the impugned orders of both the learned courts below. 6. In the result the revision also fails and it stands dismissed.