RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the petitioners and the standing counsel. ( 2 ) NOTICES in form 49 Ka was issued against the petitioner on the basis of a report of the Lekhpal of the Village that the petitioner has encroached over Gaon Sabha plot No. 113 of 2001 measuring 0-15-0 since 1389 and is liable to be ejected as well as payment of damages to the tune of Rs. 700/ -. ( 3 ) THE Petitioner filed objections inter-alia stating that the notice is illegal and baseless and in the village Bahrauli Aheer of petitioners and that more than 25% of the land in Sazra of the village is wrongly shown and had relied upon order dated 4. 3. 1970 passed by S. D. O. Agra in which it has been held that proceedings for correction of Map was ordered by S. D. O. vide order dated 28. 11. 1963 and the map submitted by the Tehsildar thereafter checking 25% of the total plots of the village contained numerous mistake. The relevant extract of the order of the S. D. O. is as under: "in obedience to the orders referred to above, it appears that the Naib Tehsildar after making the necessary checking of 25% of the total plots in the village in both the cases submitted his report alongwith the detailed chart of the plots showing the area by measurement on map and the area recorded in Khasra. It is apparent that the almost all the plots shown in the schedules the areas shown in the map differ against the area shown in the Khasra. In some plots the area shows in. the sights of records is less while in the m map it exceeds. Similarly, in some plots, the area shown in the map exceeds while it is recorded less in the Khasra. The present village map therefore, contains numerous mistakes and the same, therefore, cannot be relied upon. " ( 4 ) IT was further, alleged by the petitioner that the allotment of the land in dispute was earlier made in favour of one Manik Chand, son of Roshan Lal of the village and the said allotment in favour of Manik Chand was cancelled by the Collector by order dated 5. 3. 1979. " ( 4 ) IT was further, alleged by the petitioner that the allotment of the land in dispute was earlier made in favour of one Manik Chand, son of Roshan Lal of the village and the said allotment in favour of Manik Chand was cancelled by the Collector by order dated 5. 3. 1979. ( 5 ) IT is submitted that aggrieved by the order Manikchand filed a Revision No. 178 of 1982-83 before the Additional Collector, Agra which was dismissed by the Commissioner and now the matter is pending before the Board of Revenue U. P. at Allahabad. ( 6 ) IT was urged by the counsel for the petitioner before the Court Below that the allotment of the land in dispute to the Manik Chand and ejectment if any can be filed on his behalf and now ejectment is legally possible without impleading the allotte Sri Manik Chand in the case. The court held that in the aforesaid circumstances Manik Chand was a necessary party in the entire proceedings. ( 7 ) FURTHER considering the evidence produced by the Gaon Sabha, and the petitioners, the respondent No. 3 the Tehsildar, Assistant Collector, Agra passed an order of ejectment and imposed damages to the tune of Rs. 700/- and further directed that the petitioners will pay 1/8th part of the total damages per month till they are ejected. ( 8 ) IT has been urged by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no mention in the notice of 49 ka amount can be realized from the petitioners if they are ejected, and direction of imposing the amount of 1/8th of the total damages payable per month is highly illegal, when particularly damages have not shown in the notice. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Ram Bhawan v. Gaon Sabha 1980 page 211 in which it has been held that proceedings under Section 122-B, damages for award of amount cannot exceed the amount mentioned in form 49 ka and penalty imposed by the Court for the period set aside. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner is not able to inform the Court amount fate of the revision filed by the Manik Chand before the Board of Revenue. ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner is not able to inform the Court amount fate of the revision filed by the Manik Chand before the Board of Revenue. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, there was no mention of the case regarding notice of damages, as such the same cannot be released from the petitioner. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid position of law settled in Ram Bhawan v. Gaon Sabha (supra), no illegality or infirmity could be pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner in so far as the question of ejectment from the land in dispute is concerned the writ petition is partly succeeds and allowed to the extent that the damages imposed to the tune of Rs. 700/- and further direction for payment of 1/8th part of the total damages for ejection is quashed. No order as to costs. .