JUDGMENT S.K Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 13-7-1981 dismissing ex parte the revision filed against the order of the Tahsildar Bagpat dated 22-12-1978 in a case under Rule 115-C of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act through which the order of ejectment of the revisionist as well as the payment of damages by him was passed. The revisionist had applied to the Additional Commissioner to restore the case and set aside ex-parte order dated 13-7-1981 but his application for restoration as well as another application for condonation of delay were also rejected by the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 24-9-81. This revision is directed against those orders as well. 2. In short the facts of the case are that the lekhpal made a report against the revisionist that he had unlawfully occupied the disputed plots which are four in number and belonged to the Gaon Sabha. On this report a notice was issued in form 49-K to the revisionist upon which he made an objection that he had not encroached upon any portion of the land of the Gaon Sabha and he was in actual possession of his own field as demarcated by the consolidation authorities and that he was prepared to get his land demarcated and to leave out any land if found Intentionally included in his field. 3. The learned Tahsildar rejected the defence and found that the property belongs to the Gaon Sabha and that the revisionist had committed trespass upon the same, hence he should be ejected. The Damages at the Rs. 1708/- were also imposed. This order was challenged in revision but it was dismissed in default. Application for restoration was also dismissed, hence this revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 5. The learned counsel for the revisionist argued that in this case there is nothing on record to substantiate the case against the revisionist beyond the oral testimony of a single witness namely the lekpal and there is no evidence to corroborate him, hence on such uncorroborated testimony of the lekhpal no damages could be imposed upon the revisionist and the case should have been dismissed. 6. 6. The learned D.G.C. (R) argued that the lekhpal has given a site plan which amply prove the unlawful possession of the revisionist, hence the order passed by the trial court is absolutely justified and the revision was also rightly dismissed- 7. In my opinion the argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is not without force. The site plan given by the lekhpal is without any index and it cannot help any court to arrive at the conclusion as to what area of land has been included in the field of the revisionist. Moreover the khatauni and khasra filed by the lekhpal do not indicate the possession of the revisionist over any portion of the disputed land. In Khasra the plots are recorded as Nali and chak road and no crop is mentioned therein to have been groon. In Khatauni also no remark of possession had been made by the Kanungo. Further, the report of the lekhpal is silent about the period of trespass and column No. 4 which relates to the period of unlawful occupation is blank. In such circumstances the mere oral testimony of the lekhpal that the revisionist has included the disputed land in his chak from 1385 fasli can hardly be believed. The lekhpal has stated that the trespass was made in 1385 fasli and since then it has been going on. If this statement is correct there is no reason as to why this fact should not have been mentioned in column No. 4 of the report. In such circumstances the report appears to be exaggeration and the statement of the lekhpal is untrustworthy. The case cannot be taken to be proved on a solitary testimony which is not corroborated by any evidence whatsoever specially when the report submitted by the lekhpal balle short of the standard. Consequently the order of the Tahsildar about the payment of the damages cannot be said to be justified and deserves to be quashed. The revisionist has denied to have committed any trespass and is prepared to get his field and the disputed land demarcated. I do not see any reason as to why his version should have been rejected. 8. In view of the above discussion the revision is allowed. The order of the Tahsildar about the damages is set aside. The revisionist has denied to have committed any trespass and is prepared to get his field and the disputed land demarcated. I do not see any reason as to why his version should have been rejected. 8. In view of the above discussion the revision is allowed. The order of the Tahsildar about the damages is set aside. The order of the ejectment from the disputed land is however maintained because the revisionist has not claimed any title or possession thereon. The possession of the disputed land be taken over by the Gaon Sabha after due demarcation of the spot.