JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, Member - This is reference No. 21 of 1980-81, Ballia made by the Additional Commissioner (I), Varanasi Division, Varanasi, in revision petition No. 35/59 of 1978, Ballia - Bahadur Singh v. Nagina and others. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Nagina son of Rohan Harijan, resident of village Shubha Mohan, district Ballia, moved an application on October 27, 1978 before the Additional Collector Ballia with the contention that he was allotted land number 148M area 93 acres, 148M area .05, 141 area .10 and 22 area .07. After demarcation, Nagina came in possession of the plot number 148M area .93 and 148M area 0.5 but Thug Singh son of Nihore Singh. Singhare Kumari wife of Kedar Singh and Bahadur Singh son of Shiv Singh forcibly occupied plot numbers 141 area .10 and 52 area .06 and 22 area .07 respectively and were not prepared to vacate the land despite an application made to the S.D.O. Rasra on December 26, 1977 and to the District Magistrate and Supdt. of Police Ballia on February 26, 1978. The A.D.M. directed the Tehsildar Rasra on October 27, 1978 to take necessary action and intimate to him the action taken by him. On October 28, 1978, the Tehsildar ordered the S.K. to enquire and report. When no positive action was taken Nagina moved an application to the Collector Ballia on November 27, 1978. By means of an order dated November 27, 1978 passed on the application of Nagina, the Collector directed the Tehsildar Rasra to take necessary action. In the mean time, Sri Hari Ram Additional Collector Ballia directed the Tehsildar Rasra by means of his order dated November 3, 1978 (No. 214/A.D.M.) to take effective steps of restoring the possession to the allottee. Against this order Bahadur Singh and others preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi on December 12, 1978. The Commissioner transferred the revision to the Additional Commissioner II for disposal. The learned Additional Commissioner after hearing the parties, recommended to the Board of Revenue to set aside the order of the Additional Collector dated November 3, 1978. Against this order Bahadur Singh and others preferred a revision before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi on December 12, 1978. The Commissioner transferred the revision to the Additional Commissioner II for disposal. The learned Additional Commissioner after hearing the parties, recommended to the Board of Revenue to set aside the order of the Additional Collector dated November 3, 1978. Nagina and others, aggrieved by the recommendation of the Additional Commissioner dated March 7, 1980 made objections commending that the revisionist in the court of the Additional Commissioner had not title over the land in dispute and the claim if any would stand washed due to consolidation operations that the learned Additional Commissioner has erred in completely overlooking this point, that the revisionist Bahadur Singh and others had participated in the proceedings and the orders passed by the Additional Collector cannot be said to have been passed behind the back of the revisionist, that if the order of the Additional Collector was ex-parte, the revisionist Bahadur Singh and others could move an application for restoration. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for Bahadur Singh and others, learned D.G.C.(R), Sri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for Nagina and the learned DGC(R) have pleaded that no revision is maintainable because under Section 198-A of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, the Assistant Collector is empowered to restore the possession of the allottee. Their second submission is that even if the revisionists are in adverse possession, the Assistant Collector could order for restoration of possession to the allottee in view of the ruling referred to in 1982 R.D. 300. The learned counsel for Bahadur Singh and other have pleaded that no order for restoration of possession in favour of the allottee could be made because the land was not vacant. His second submission is that Bahadur Singh and others were not impleaded as necessary parties in the case. Reliance was placed of 1976 R.D. 53. The learned counsel for Bahadur Singh and other have pleaded that no order for restoration of possession in favour of the allottee could be made because the land was not vacant. His second submission is that Bahadur Singh and others were not impleaded as necessary parties in the case. Reliance was placed of 1976 R.D. 53. It has been pleaded that the case has been initiated under Section 198-A sub-section(1) provides: "198-A(1) Where any land referred to in Section 195 of Section 197 in allotted to any person whether as a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights or as an Asami, and any person other than the allottee is in occupation of such land in contravention of the provisions of this Act, and without the consent of the allottee the Assistant Collector may of his own motion and shall on the application of the allottee, put him in possession of such land and may, for that purpose use of cause to be used such force as he considered necessary." 4. The section provides that an allottee has to ask for possession and the Assistant Collector is empowered to take action of his own motion and on the application of the allottee. While it is discretionary with him to take sue-moto action, it is imperative on him to take action on the allottee's application. In the present case, action was taken on the application of Nagina. Sri Hari Ram, Additional Collector Ballia (sic) directed the Thesildar Rasra by means of a letter No. 214/A.D.M. dated November 3, 1978 to take effective action for the restoration of possession to the allottee Nagina. On receipt of this letter, the Tehsildar endorsed the letter on November 4, 1978 to the Naib-Tehsildar requiring him to take necessary action and to submit report. In compliance of the Tehsildar's order the revenue officials were required to make demarcation and to restore possession to the allottee. It appears from the trial court file that this attempt was resisted by the revisionist. The Tehsildar requested the Station Officer of Police Station Garwar to maintain law and order during the demarcation and meanwhile the revisionist obtained stay orders. 5. The first contention made by the learned counsel for the revisionist Bahadur Singh and others is not accepted. Admittedly, the revisionist are trespassers. The Tehsildar requested the Station Officer of Police Station Garwar to maintain law and order during the demarcation and meanwhile the revisionist obtained stay orders. 5. The first contention made by the learned counsel for the revisionist Bahadur Singh and others is not accepted. Admittedly, the revisionist are trespassers. If a trespasser is in possession of certain Gaon Sabha land, it does not cease to be vacant land and its allotment can be made by L.M.C. As regards the second submission that no notice was served on the revisionist and they were not imleaded as parties, it is acceptable. No notice to show cause why the unauthorised occupation be not ordered to be removed or to remove their possession and to vacate the land was issued in this case. The proceedings under Section 198-A of the Act are judicial in nature. By Act XX of 1982 the Assistant Collector is empowered to take action either of his own motion or on the application of the allottee. In the present case, the Tehsildar Rasra exceeded his jurisdiction by directing the Station Office of Police Station Garwar and the other officials to make demarcation of the land without hearing the occupant. The recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is, therefore, accepted and the order of the Additional Collector dated November 1978 is quashed. The case is remanded with the direction that the Assistant Collector 1st class shall initiate proceeding afresh in accordance with law.