JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is a reference made by Additional Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur dated 4-9-1979 who by his order has recommended that the case should be remanded to the trial court for rehearing on the ground that the notice issued in form 49-A was defective in as much as the period of trespass was not mentioned therein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 3. The notice in Form 49-A no doubt does not indicate the period of trespass but it does include other particulars, hence it cannot be held to be illegal on this ground alone. The mere non-mentioning of the period of trespass can at best amount to an irregularity but it would not vitiate the trial since it could not cause any prejudice to the revisionist. Besides this the revision has whole-heartedly contested the case, hence for that reasons also it cannot be said that his defence has been prejudiced m any way. The recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner is, therefore, unworthy of being accepted and is accordingly rejected. 4. Arguments on merit were, therefore, heard. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the state has utterly failed to prove the possession of the revisionist on the disputed land because the khasra and even the statement of the lekhpal are silent about the raising of any crop by him. It was further argued that the revisionist has denied his possession over the disputed land, hence no damages can be imposed, upon him. I find force, in this argument The lekhpal has not stated that the revisionist has grown any crop in the dispute land. The order of the trial court dated 25-1-1979 is also silent about the actual mode of trespass made by the revisionist. In these circumstances no damages can be imposed upon him. The result is chat the revision is partly allowed and the order of the trial court about taking into possession of the land by the Gaon Sabha is upheld but the order about imposition of penalty is set aside.