JUDGMENT : J.P. Semwal, J. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of Asstt. Collector/Tahsildar concerned dated 24-9-1991, and order dated 30th March, 1992, of the Addl. Collector Muzaffar Nagar (Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition, respectively). 2. The present petition arises out of proceedings started u/s 122-B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act. The petitioner is a resident of village Jagdishpura Pargana Thana Bhawan Tehsil Kairana district Muzaffar Nagar. The Lekhpal Heend submitted a report against the petitioner on the allegations that the petitioner had taken unauthorised- possession and made encroachment on Gata Sankhya 12 measuring 0.45 i.e. 580 sq. yards situate in village Heend which was reserved for Abadi purposes and taken possession unauthorised A notice was served under Rule 114 (Gha), vide annexure-1 to the petition. Consequently, the proceedings u/s 122-B, were started against the petitioner in which the petitioner submitted his objections stated that he was not in possession over the plot in dispute nor he bad ever taken its possession. The petitioner gave his oral statement and also produced former Pradhan of the Gaon Samaj which showed that he was not in possession of the plot in dispute at all, nor he had ever taken possession thereof and the disputed land had been allotted to his sons. It is stated that during the hearing of the proceedings, Tahsildar misdirected himself to the validity of the allotment in favour of his sons. The Tahsildar held the petitioner to be in unauthorised possession over the land concerned and imposed a fine of Rs. 5800/- upon ejectment of the petitioner. Subsequently, a revision was filed by the petitioner which was to rejected by the Additional Collector, Muzaffarnagar. 3. I have heard Shri G. D. Srivastava learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and have perused the record. None has appeared for the opposite parties, though the list has been revised. 4. On 14-5-1992, this Court had passed interim order and it was inter alia directed that the Respondents might proceed for ejectment of the petitioner from the plot in dispute. The recovery of the damages would remain stayed provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 500/- with the Respondent No. 3 within a period of six weeks. There is nothing on record to show that the sum of Rs. The recovery of the damages would remain stayed provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 500/- with the Respondent No. 3 within a period of six weeks. There is nothing on record to show that the sum of Rs. 500/- has been deposited with the Respondent No. 3. The impugned order of the Revisional court does not suffer from any illegality of infirmity. The petitioner has taken stand that when he has disowned his possession over the land the damages could not have been imposed upon him in view of G.O. No. 8639/75 Sa-12-2384/75 dated 10th September 1975. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited Ram Singh v. State of U.P. 1987 R.D. 204 in support of this contention. No doubt, the same ground in support of aforecited G.O. was taken in the aforesaid case and the learned Single Judge had, while dismissing the writ petition in limine made observations that if the damages awarded by the Tahsildar have not been realised from the petitioners as yet, the same shall not be realised from them and in case the damages have been realised from the petitioner, it would be open to them to claim refund thereof. It may also be mentioned that the petitioner has not claimed the benefit of the aforesaid GO. dated 10-9-1175 before the lower courts. 5. Let us examine whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the said G. O. 6. The facts and circumstances of the aforementioned case were different because in proceedings u/s 122-B of UP ZA & LR Act in that case, the Lekhpal and Pradhan who were examined had deposed that the petitioners were not in possession over the disputed land. In the present case, it is former Pradhan who has made statement and not Lekhpal. Moreover on the showing of the petitioner himself, the land in question is in the name of his sons. 7. The Revenue Courts have passed the orders after considering objections of the petitioner and documents on records and given finding on the disputed question of facts. It is apparent that the Gaon Samaj had examined Lekhpal Shri Shyamlal who gave his oral testimony supporting his report u/s 122-B, of UP ZA & LR Act and proved unauthorised possession of the petitioner. It is apparent that the Gaon Samaj had examined Lekhpal Shri Shyamlal who gave his oral testimony supporting his report u/s 122-B, of UP ZA & LR Act and proved unauthorised possession of the petitioner. In his cross-examination, Lekhpal has stated that he has given report after perusing the resolution register and that the land was not allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner was in possession thereof. No doubt the petitioner examined Ajimuddin, former Pradhan of Gaon Samaj, and filed few receipts in the name of his sons Jay Singh, Jay Pal and Roop Singh but the said receipts have manipulations and were not accepted by the lower court. No evidence was produced by the petitioner to show that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had sanctioned any allotment in the name of hic sons or that the allotment in the name of the petitioner's sons, is entered in the register concerned. The Tahsildar has discussed the evidence and there is no illegality in it. The Additional Collector concerned has also discussed the evidence and has also mentioned l that there is no evidence to show that father and sons do not form joint family. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner gracefully conceded that bare-denial of the petitioner does not amount to clinching evidence of the petitioner of not having been in possession of the land in question. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid, Government Order dated 10th September, 1975. 9. The learned Counsel for the. petitioner argued that in the notice (annexure-1) the proposed damages were mentioned to the tune of Rs. 31,320/-- and that the Tahsildar concerned fixed the amount of damages at Rs. 5,880/- without any basis and without any evidence in support thereof. It was further urged that land was not an agricultural land and it was alleged to be Abadi land over which the petitioner is alleged to have taken unauthorised possession by digging foundation There is thus neither any allegation nor the evidence that the petitioner has earned any profit from the said Abadi land in question. I find force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of damage it reduced to half of the amount of Rs. 5,800/- which comes to Rs. 2,900/-. I find force in the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of damage it reduced to half of the amount of Rs. 5,800/- which comes to Rs. 2,900/-. In case the entire amount of damages of Rs. 5,800/- have already been realised from the petitioner, the half amount of Rs. 2,900/- shall be refunded to the petitioner. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 14th May, 1992 is hereby vacated.