JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, Member. - This reference has been mad under Section 333 of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 by the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi dated 19-11-1983 against the order of Tahsildar/Assistant Collector Jaunpur dated 7-7-1980 in a proceeding under Rule 115-C of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Rules. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that the notice in form 49-K was issued to the revisionist who filed objection that the notice was issued against his father who had died. The revisionist is heir of the deceased and he had not been impleaded. The trial court after taking the evidence ordered the revisionist to be ejected and imposed a damages of Rs. 213/- On 5-3-1980 but after this another application was moved by the revisionist then the trial court set aside that order and dropped that proceeding holding that the land in dispute is abadi. Against the revision was filed before the learned Commissioner who recommended that the notice is defective. The Notice should be issued afresh against living person. The trial court has no jurisdiction to review review its own order. 3. No objection has been filed against the recommendation. Perused the record. 4. I agree with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner, therefore, the reference is accepted and the trial court is directed to decide the proceeding afresh after issue of the notice in accordance with the recommendation of the learned Commissioner.