JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member - The facts are: On a report of lekhpal a proceeding under Section 122-B Z.A. and L.R. Act commenced in the court of Tehsildar/Assistant Collector First Class. On 15.7.1976 a show cause notice in Form 49-Ka was issued to Bhartoo. It has been set forth that he has taken unauthorised possession over plot No. 913 area 3 biswas and 935 area 7 biswas from 1363 Fasli. (On 11.8.76) an objection in Opposition is lodged by Bhartoo. His pleading is denial of all allegations and vigorous claim is that land is his own; never having vested in Gaon Sabha. The notice is not at all valid. Further claim is that his Abadi over the land is coming down from before Abolition of Zamindari. Also, a proceeding for ejectment was earlier set in motion but ended in failure on 7.4.1970. 2. Parties are given chance to lead their evidence. On 4.7.1977 Tahsildar enters an order dropping the proceeding. Gaon Sabha lodges a revision in Commissioner's. On 13.5.1990 Addl. Commissioner submits a reference to set aside the order of court below; to remand the case for re-disposal to consider the implications of Section 122-B (4-F) Z.A. and L.R. Act. So the reference is docketed for a definitive judgment. 3. Heard the counsel for and against the reference. 4. The plots in dispute are 913 area 3 decimal and 935 area 7 decimal. In Khasra 1383 Fasli plot No. 913 is recorded as old Part. In Khatuani 1383 Fasli the plots are not entered in the name of a tenure-holder. It is not comprised in any holding and will surely vest in Gaon Sabha under Section 117 (1) Z.A. and L.R. Act. Kharsa 1360-1361 Fasli finds land Banjar not a holding. Khasra 1396 Fasli records it abadi. All this wealth of material lands to an ineluctable conclusion that land is not part of holding and in consolidation was declared Abadi, as is confessed by Sant Lal Lekhpal AW/1, Thus the plots became vacant space meant for construction of Abadi. 5. The open space in abadi vests in Gaon Sabha 1930 R.D. 21. According to Land Records Manual entry of Abadi is made for both the position; (1) Abadi sites: vesting in owner thereof (2) vacant space in Abadi: vesting in Gaon Sabha. Will anybody tell me what is why of this. 5. The open space in abadi vests in Gaon Sabha 1930 R.D. 21. According to Land Records Manual entry of Abadi is made for both the position; (1) Abadi sites: vesting in owner thereof (2) vacant space in Abadi: vesting in Gaon Sabha. Will anybody tell me what is why of this. Here entry of abadi is for vacant space not abadi site. Consolidation in respect of this land has taken place. Lekhpal is positive that in C.H. Form Mo. 41 and 45 land is noted as Abadi. Significantly, it has not been declared bhumidhari/Asami tenure of Bhartoo, So he has no tenurial right at ail: 1962 R.D. 200. In consequence of consolidation, open space in abadi, vesting in Gaon Sabha: a trespasser in unlawful possession, stretching from the date of vesting will not mature tenancy right title or interest in the land. Such a person cannot even raise of question of bona fide right of claim: 1979 R.D. 286, 298 and 209. 1979 R.D. 84, 1977 R.D. 183. 1975 R.D. 168, 1972 R.D. 357, clearly land is found vesting in Gaon Sabha and Bhartoo is rank trespasser. In such state of things. Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to drop the proceeding for the reason that abadi is old. His reasoning is dull beyond reason. There is no particle of evidence to bear out abadi at the time of vesting; not when consolidation had set in. 6. Also, I do not agree with Addl. Commissioner's recommendation that case should be remanded because Tahsildar is under an obligation to make an order directing Bhartoo to institute a declaratory law suit in view of a bona fide question of right. It is surely not to remember a vivid formula; bona fide right of claim, but erucially more important it to precisely ascertain what actually the facts are, upon evidence. The smallest real fact about controversy in all it's ramifications that can be set in prespective is more poetical than all shelly and more romantic than all scott. I see no case of bona fide right of claim. Addl. Commissioner's sticking held, descriptions and analysis have not approximate at all to validity. 7. More Additional Commissioner articulates a point that Tahsildar be directed to examine whether Bhartoo is entitled to benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) Z.A. & L.R. Act. I see no case of bona fide right of claim. Addl. Commissioner's sticking held, descriptions and analysis have not approximate at all to validity. 7. More Additional Commissioner articulates a point that Tahsildar be directed to examine whether Bhartoo is entitled to benefit of Section 122-B (4-F) Z.A. & L.R. Act. Bhartoo violently refuses to acknowledge that land is Gaon Sabha's. No relief here, there or any where is sought or evidence adduced in terms of Section 122-B (4-F). It is, then, idle to intone a litany not sponsored by revisionist Bhartoo. 8. The counsel is insistently urging that a second report for eviction is not supportable because earlier report has ended in favour of Bhartoo by order dated 7.4.1970. This proceeding determine no substantive rights. A second proceeding, if trespass is continuing space is not barred. The position has been mediated in respectable precedents: 1982 RD 243, 1980 RD 243. Also I am sure that revenue courts are acceptable to order ejectment and demolition of construction raised over Gaon Sabha land: 1980 ACJ 487 and 1973 RD 255. 9. On a consideration of foregoing, I am of opinion that a case for ordering ejectment and demolition from plot No. 913 and 935 is made out. The unauthorised construction shall be demolished and Bhartoo ejected. The reference is partly accepted. The order of Tahsildar dated 4.7.77 is set aside. But I see no adequate reason for remand to Tahsildar for retrial. Order accordingly.