K.N. Misra, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned orders passed by the opposite -parties Nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the notice in Z.A. Form 49Ka was not valid. I have perused the impugned notice and I do not find any illegality in the said notice issued to the Petitioner. Learned Counsel contended that the notice in Z.A. Form 49A has not been prepared in accordance with the provisions of Rule 115D and as such no proceedings can be taken for eviction of the Petitioner from the land in dispute. I am unable to agree with this contention. Proceedings under Rule 115C and also under Section 122B of the Z.A. and L.R. Act are made for eviction of the unauthorised occupant of the Gaon Sabha land and he is also made liable to pay compensation by way of damages in respect of the unauthorised occupation of the land. Thus, in my opinion notice will not become invalid if it does not contain direction to vacate the land failing which the Petitioner would be evicted. The Petitioner was found to be in unauthorised occupation of the land in question, and as such his eviction has been rightly ordered to be made and the eviction order cannot be said to be invalid on the aforesaid ground urged by the learned Counsel.
(3.) A trespasser cannot insist to remain in occupation of the land, nor he can oppose his eviction merely on the ground of want of a request in the notice to vacate the land, nor the notice in Z.A. Form 49A can be taken to be invalid for such omission. The initiation of proceedings for eviction under Section 122B or Rule 115C and 115D would itself be enough to bring to the notice of trespasser that his eviction is sought for from the land in question. In the present case the opposite -parties Nos. 2 and 3 after taking into consideration evidence on record have held that the Petitioner is in unauthorised occupation since 1384 Fasli and so in my opinion he has been rightly ordered to be evicted on payment of damages of Rs. 2700/ -.;