JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - Those 39 references has been made by the Addl. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra vide his recommendation dated 31.5.1985 under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No, 1 of 1951. These 39 references has been made against the order of the Asstt. Collector/Tehsildar, Agra dated 23.11.1991 passed in proceeding under Section 122-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. 2. Both the courts have consolidated the 39 cases together and had disposed of by a common order and recommendation, therefore, they have been taken together for disposal. 3. I have heard the learned D.G.C. (R.). No one is present from the side of the opposite parties. Perused the record. 4. The learned Tahsildar/Asstt. Collector, 1st Class came to the conclusion that the entry was made by the lekhpal fraudulently. The opposite parties had also made the report against the lekhpal before 'Upper Collector that they have not occupied any land and the proceedings have been initiated against them in order to harass them. The proceeding was dropped by the trial court and the trial court also came to the conclusion that there was no possession of the opposite parties. He also came to the conclusion that in the Khasra he unauthorised occupation is shown now separate area in the name of opposite party was entered, even the name of the opposite party was not entered. Against that order of the Tahsildar revisions were filed before the Addl. Commissioner on the ground that the opposite parties were in possession, since their possession was for an unlimited period, hence the entry in khasra, khatauni and map was not made and it was also not practicable to do. The learned Addl. Commissioner came to the conclusion that the finding recorded by the trial court is not correct. The opposite parties were in possession. They should be ejected and damages should be imposed upon them. Me, therefore, directed that a fresh notice in Form 49-K should be issued and the opposite parties should be given an opportunity to be heard and a fresh order should be passed. 5. In the revision whatever the finding has been recorded by the trial court on fact they cannot be set aside and a different finding on fact can be given by the revisional court unless the finding recorded are against the evidence and perverse. 5. In the revision whatever the finding has been recorded by the trial court on fact they cannot be set aside and a different finding on fact can be given by the revisional court unless the finding recorded are against the evidence and perverse. The trial court himself have visited the spot and he was not convinced to found any encroachment of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have also denied that they are in possession. In these circumstances of the fact the recommendation made by the Addl. Commissioner is not acceptable to this court. It appears that the entry of the possession are fraudulent and fictitious, the opposite parties are bound by their pleadings that they were not in possession. If they betray from that proceeding they can be thrown out of the possession of the disputed plots. The disputed plots are in the bed of the river, hence the possession cannot be continued even if it is presumed that hey had acquired the land, but in this case this does not appears to be correct. Therefore, the reference made by the Addl. Commissioner is not accepted. However I agree with the contention of the learned counsel that if any opposite party claims possession he can be thrown out by force in view of their denial of possession. Therefore, these references are decided accordingly. This order shall govern Reference No. 36 to 74 of 1985-86/Agra.