JUDGMENT (1.) PARITOSH K. Mukherjee, J. Sri S. A. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel have made their submissions and prayed that the petition be disposed of finally. Accordingly, I proceed to dispose of the writ petition finally. (2.) THIS petition is directed against an order passed by Board of Revenue on April 18, 1988 rejecting the reference made by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad on March 18, 1983. The brief facts of the case are that on account of flood, house of the petitioner fell down. The petitioner constructed house on the same foundation. The case of the petitioner was that he was living in house in dispute for more than 50 years. Thereafter a notice in Z. A. Form No. 49-A was served upon father of the petitioner on the ground that land in dispute was belonging to Gaon Sabha. Father of the petitioner contested the case on the ground that notice was defective for lack of necessary particulars ; land in dispute was not identifiable on the spot, etc, etc. However, Tahsildar Soraon, District Allahabad passed an order on 27. 7. 1981 for ejectment of petitioner from the land in dispute and damage of Rs. 300. (3.) THAT since father of the petitioner had died during the pendency of the proceedings before Tahsildar, petitioner was substituted in his place. In the revision having been preferred by petitioner, Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division made a reference to the Board of Revenue recommending setting aside of order of Tahsildar dated 27. 7. 1981. However, Board of Revenue did not accept the recommendations of Additional Commissioner and affirmed the order passed by Tahsildar dated 27. 7. 1981. Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court by means of present petition. 7. 1981. However, Board of Revenue did not accept the recommendations of Additional Commissioner and affirmed the order passed by Tahsildar dated 27. 7. 1981. Aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this court by means of present petition. (4.) A perusal of order of reference, dated March 18, 1983, passed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad reveals that he had arrived at the following conclusion:- (i) The notice in ZA Form 49a is defective; as the same is not in accordance with the amended rules ; (ii) The land in dispute is not identifiable on the spot because this was left as surplus land contiguous to the abadi during consolidation proceedings ; (iii) Lekhpal had not made any measurement on the spot and has taken it for granted that petitioner has reconstructed his house by unlawfully occupying Gaon Sabha land ; (iv) Witnesses have deposed in favour of petitioner that the house is old one and it is not the land of Gaon Sabha. It is really unfortunate that even though all details have been given by learned Additional Commissioner while making recommendations for quashing the order of Tahsildar, the Board of Revenue, without giving any cogent reason rejected the reference. (5.) LEARNED Standing counsel, however, drew my attention to paragraph 4 of the judgment of Board of Revenue, dated 18. 4. 1988. In this paragraph, it has been held by learned Member, Board of Revenue that the notice was not defective in view of the fact that the disputed land is recorded in favour of Gaon Sabha in the revenue record and the petitioner had never filed any objection to this effect during consolidation proceedings. (6.) THE aforesaid observation by Board of Revenue is not based on appraisal of evidence. Learned Additional Commissioner, in his order of reference, has discussed each and every point after consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record. THE notice was bad on account of initial infirmity. On consideration of material evidence on record, a finding of fact was recorded by Additional Commissioner that petitioner has not occupied Gaon Sabha land and the house of the petitioner has been constructed on the site of his old house. I find no justification in upsetting the aforesaid findings of fact. THE notice was bad on account of initial infirmity. On consideration of material evidence on record, a finding of fact was recorded by Additional Commissioner that petitioner has not occupied Gaon Sabha land and the house of the petitioner has been constructed on the site of his old house. I find no justification in upsetting the aforesaid findings of fact. I am afraid, on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case, I cannot subscribe to the view of learned Standing Counsel to remand the case for retrial. The order of reference, dated March 18, 1983 passed by Additional Commissioner, Allahabad Division is just and proper. Board of Revenue has committed a manifest error of law in rejecting the order of reference. Thus, the judgment and order of the Board of Revenue cannot be sustained in law and deserve to be set aside. (7.) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated April, 18, 1988 passed by respondent No. 1 are set aside. The recommendations made through order of reference dated March 18, 1983 by the Additional Commissioner, Allahabad are accepted, in toto. Petition allowed.