JUDGMENT P. Singh, M. - This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated March 14, 1980 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut, in Revision No. 200 of 1979. 2. The instant proceedings under Section 122-B were initiated against Manohar and Babori on the report of Pradhan, wherein it was alleged that they had unauthorisedly occupied plot No. 140, area 0-3-0 from 1383 Fasli. A notice in Form 49-A was issued, against which an objection was filed by the revisionists alleging that they were landless persons, that they were in possession over the land in dispute from before the consolidation operations, that their father was in possession of this land and after his death the objectors were in possession, and that they had become Bhumidhars of the land in dispute. The trial court passed an order of ejectment and imposed an amount of Rs. 324/- as damages. Against that order of the Assistant Collector, a revision was preferred before the learned Additional Commissioner, who also rejected the revision holding that if possession was from before the consolidation operations, then it should have been recorded as Abadi. 3. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 4. The learned counsel for the revisionists submits that they were in possession of the land in dispute from before consolidation operations and subsequently they took lease in respect of this land. The learned D.G.C. (R.) submits that no lease has been filed by the revisionists and that they had been in unauthorised possession of Gaon Sabha land. 5. I find that if the revisionists obtained a lease in spite of the fact that they were in possession of the land in dispute from before consolidation operations, then there was no illegality in getting the lease. The view of the learned Additional Commissioner on this score does not have the force of law. The possession of the revisionists appears to be old and in respect of Abadi land it is difficult to produce any documentary evidence such as extracts of revenue records. I find that the revisionists have their constructions over this land they are old constructions. In view of this, I find that the orders passed by both the courts below suffer from infirmities. 6. With these observations, this revision is allowed and the orders of the courts below are set aside.