JUDGMENT Bhairo Prasad, J. - This reference has been made by the Addl. Commissioner, to Division, Agra vide his recommendation dated 31-5-1978. 2. In brief the facts of this case are that proceeding against the opp. parties started under Rule 155-C of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R Rules. The trial court dropped the proceeding vide its order dated 18-8-1975 then State filed a revision before the Addl. Commissioner under Section 333-A of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. The Addl. Commissioner has recommended the revision on the ground that the notice in Form 49-A was not properly prepared and issued to the opposite parties, therefore the proceeding is defective and he recommended that the order of the trial court should be set aside and the trial court should be directed to issue fresh notice and to decide the case a fresh. 3. Heard the learned counsel fort both the parties Pursued the record. 4. There is no mention of the plot number in the notice in Form 49-A. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that plot No. 380 belongs to another party and he is bhumidhar. Plot NO, 381 belongs to him and he is recorded bhumidhar of the plot. Plot No, 382 is land of public utility an recorded as rasta. No encroachment has been made by his client in land plot. His house in dispute is in plot No. 381, therefore, he requested that the proceeding should be dropped. I have perused the record. Till a demarcation is made whether the disputed construction of public the house is in plot No. 381 or 382 no proceeding is possible ? it is essential that first of all it should be ascertained whether the construction is in plot No. 381 or 382. In this view of the facts this proceeding is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed and referring order is not accepted. The order of the trial court is maintained. However the Gaon Sabha and State has right to initiate a fresh proceeding if there is any encroachment in plot No. 382. 5. The result is that the reference rejected.