JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, M. - This reference has been made under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by the Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut dated 21.9.1981. 2. In the court of Assistant Collector 1st Class/Tahsildar Nagina, district Bijnor the lekhpal made a report under Section 122-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 that Opposite-party Zamil Ahmad has encroached on 18Sq. yard area of plot no.30 of village Rampur Chhajmal, Tahsil Nagina, district Bijnor, hence he should be ejected and damages of Rs. 162/- should be imposed. The opposite party appeared and filed objection that disputed plot is not the property of Gaon Sabha but it is in use of the villagers from the enforcement of the Z.A.and L.R. Act. There are grave yards of the Muslim communities. Hindus also use their land for tether the cattle and storing caw dung etc. The trial court on 31.8.1978 on a proforma order ejected the opposite party and imposed a damage of Rs 162/-. The revisionist filed an application before the trial court that he was not heard. On his application the trial court passed the order dated 16.2.1979 that the proceeding is dropped and if the opposite party does not remove the encroachment his possession should be recorded in the revenue record and again report should be made under Section 122-B of U.P. Act no. 1 of 1951. Against this revision was filed by the revisionist under Section 333-A of U.P. ACt No. 1 of 1951 before the Additional Commissioner, who has recommended the revision that the trial court have no power to review its own order. Hence the orders dated 6.2.1979 and 16.2.1979 should be set aside. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the State. No one is present from the side of the opposite party-revisionist. Perused the record. 4. The main question in this revision is whether the dispute plot is a property of Gaon Sabha or the persons who are in possession and using the land for different purpose had acquired right? This fact needs to be determined by the trial court. The first order of the trial court dated 31.8.1978 is no order in the eye of law as it is on a proforma order-sheet. This fact needs to be determined by the trial court. The first order of the trial court dated 31.8.1978 is no order in the eye of law as it is on a proforma order-sheet. The second order is also without jurisdiction that the trial court has no jurisdiction to review its own order, hence both the orders are set aside and the trial court is directed to first of all consider whether the opposite-party had any right over the disputed plot in view of his assertion in the objection? He will also determine whether the land has vested in the Gaon Sabha and villagers of the disputed plot can be precluded from the use of land as they were using it before the enforcement of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act after that? On considering these facts he should decide the proceeding afresh.