Judgment By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23-8-1992 and order dated 30-31993 passed by the respondents no. 2 and 1 respectively. 2. The writ petition was filed before the Allahabad High Court and thereafter it was transferred to this Court. On 27-7-2004 notices were issued to the petitioner as well as to the private respondent. The service report shows that the petitioner and opposite party no. 3 was served by affixation. Again on 5-10-2004 notice was issued to both the parties and notices were served personally on the petitioner. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, a letter dated 27-10-2004 was received from the petitioner. He has contended that he is a poor person and is unable to engage a counsel and as such requested that the case may be decided on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. 3. A perusal of the record shows that the proceedings under section 1226 were Initiated on the report of Lekhpal stating therein that the petitioner Is In unauthorized possession of Khasara no. 37 M area 0-0-10 since 1395F and as such notices were Issued for filing objection. Objections were filed by the petitioner stating therein that he is not in unauthorized possession and he has not made any damage to the property of the Gaon Sabha. He has further stated that with regard to the property in dispute there was a litigation between his father and the Gaon Sabha under section 1226 of Z.A. & L.R. Act, which is still pending. The damages which have been estimated by the respondents are wholly Illegal and notice Is liable to be quashed. On behalf of the Gaon Sabha arguments have been raised that the property In dispute has been recorded as Jauhar. The Assistant Collector, Laxer vide order dated 27-8-1992 imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and has directed for the recovery of the same. A revision was preferred by the petitioner challenging the order of the Assistant Collector that in pursuance of the judgement of the Munsif the land In dispute has already been declared as Abadi and it is not a Gaon Sabha property and as such notice Is liable to be quashed. The revisional Court has confirmed the findings vide order dated 30-3-1993. 4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit. The revisional Court has confirmed the findings vide order dated 30-3-1993. 4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that during the consolidation proceedings the land In question has been recorded as Jauhar in revenue records and as such it Is a Gaon Sabha property . 5. In order to Invoke the provisions of 1226 of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, first of all the authority concerned has to record the findings that the property has been vested In the Gaon Sabha under the provisions of the Act, and thereafter the Assistant Collector has to be satisfied that the property has been damaged or misappropriated in contravention of the provision of this Act. 6. Section 122-6 (1) (2) are quoted below: 122-8. Powers of the Land Management Committee and the Col1ector- (1) Where any property vested under the provisions of this Act, in a. Gaon Sabha or a local authority is damaged or misappropriated or where any Gaon Sabha or local authority is entitled to take or retain possession of any land under the provisions of this Act and such land is occupied otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the Land Management Committee or Local Authority as the case may be, shall inform the assistant Collector concerned in the manner prescribed. (2) Where from the information received under sub section (1) or otherwise the Assistant Collector is satisfied that any property referred to in sub section (1) has been damaged or misappropriated or any person is in occupation of any land, referred to in that sub section, in contravention of the provisions of this act, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show cause why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation as mentioned in such notice be not recovered from him or, as the case may be why he should not be evicted from such land. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the Assistant Collector has not decided the controversy as to whether the land in question still continues to be recorded in revenue record as Jauhar and at no point of time it was declared as Abadi as stated by the petitioner in the grounds of revision. 8. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the Assistant Collector has not decided the controversy as to whether the land in question still continues to be recorded in revenue record as Jauhar and at no point of time it was declared as Abadi as stated by the petitioner in the grounds of revision. 8. Secondly, the question with regard to the litigation between the father of the petitioner and the Gaon Sabha has also not been specifically dealt by the Court below before passing the order of recovery of damages against the petitioner. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the Assistant Collector who shall record the findings on the following questions : 1. Whether the land Khasara No. 37M area 0-0-10 has ever been recorded as Abadi ? 2. Whether there is any revenue entry with regard to Jauhar in the revenue records ? 3. Whether the amount of damages imposed on the petitioner was assessed on the evidence on record and whether any damage was actually caused to the Gaon Sabha by the petitioner? 4. Whether the land has been damaged and misappropriated by the petitioner in contravention of the provisions of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act. 9. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. The order dated 27-8-1992 and 30-3-1993 passed by the respondent no. 2 and 1 respectively are hereby quashed. The matter is sent back to the assistant Collector for deciding it afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law.