JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - On a report by Lekhpal on 27.8.79 an ejectment proceeding under Section 198 (4) commenced against Duda and Muttun. The complaint is that they have taken unauthorised possession over Gaon Sabha plot No. 307 from 1379 Fasli: causing a damage of Rs. 3,960.00. A notice is issued in Z.A. Form 49-Ka inviting the trespassers to file an objection. On 25.9.79 Opposite Party Duda's lodge an objection in opposition. Their pleading has set forth the contention that land is their bhumidhari holding and Gaon Sabha has no concern. It is given that their bamboo clamps, a barn, a manure pit is over the land. It is asserted that a bona fide question of title is involved. Parties are given chance to make their representation. On 13.12.79 Tahsildar enters an order of ejectment from the land in dispute; also to pay Rs. 1,760.00 as damages. 2. Duda's file a revision in Commissioner's. On 15.10.86 Additional Commissioner enters an order of reference with his recommendation to allow the revision: set aside the order of Tahsildar dated 13.12.79 and to remand the proceeding for re-trial and decision afresh after issue of a new notice in Z.A. Form 49-Ka. The reference is docketed in the list for a definitive decision. 3. Heard the counsel pro and con the reference. 4. The reference rests on only one ground the notice in Z.A. Form 49-Ka is not in the new prescribed proforma. In my opinion, this defect is inconsequential because Duda's have been pasted with crucial details concerning the trespass. Indeed, their objection has set forth a counter contention that land is their bhumidhari tenure. The details of contents of notice is less material to them. The defect of notice is not to be appraised. Independently and apart, in academic abstraction. The notice has a reciprocal relation with what the objection of the trespasser is. The trespassers say that land is not Gaon Sabha's. Whether objection is valid or not, is not exposed to undermining by issue of a notice in the old prescribed Form 49-Ka. 5. It is apt to notice Section 10-C U.P. General Clauses (Amendment) Act 1975: "10-C Deviations from forms: Where by any Uttar Pradesh Act, a form is prescribed, slight deviations therefrom not effecting the substance or calculated to mislead, shall not invalidate it". The section has retrospective application. 5. It is apt to notice Section 10-C U.P. General Clauses (Amendment) Act 1975: "10-C Deviations from forms: Where by any Uttar Pradesh Act, a form is prescribed, slight deviations therefrom not effecting the substance or calculated to mislead, shall not invalidate it". The section has retrospective application. The notice is open to challenge if Duda's are able to show that they were mislead in presentation of their defence by wound of absence of concrete details. They show not. The reference is misconceived. Khatauni 1386 Fasli records plot No. 307 as Parti. Khatauni 1382 to 1387 Fasli enters the names of Duda and Muttun in Verg 4. This is telling evidence that land vests in Gaon Sabha and trespassers are in unauthorised occupation. There is a rebuttable presumption of correctness of Khatauni entries. There is absence of evidence to show that rebuttal. Tahsildar has the jurisdiction to pass a judgment that he has. It has been underlined in objection that no valuation of land was given in consolidation. If this was so they should have registered a protest then and there. Here and new their contention is barred under Sections 11 (2) and 49 C.H. Act. No rights accrue by adverse possession over Gaon Sabha land by virtue of adverse possession even how so much it may struct back to the date of vesting. The trespassers are precluded in raising plea of bona fide right of claim and contention. 6. On a consideration of the foregoing, the reference is misconceived; so is rejected. The trespassers Duda and Muttun are ejected from the land.