Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) Office report dated 6.1.2001 indicates that notices were sent by registered post to opposite parties 5 to 8 but neither acknowledgement nor undelivered cover has been received back after service. Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned Counsel represents the respondents 5, 6 and 7. Service on respondent No. 8 is treated to be sufficient under Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court.
(2.) Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.N. Bhargava, learned Counsel representing the, respondents 5, 6 and 7 and Sri S.P. Yadav, learned Counsel representing the respondent No. 4 Gaya Prasad.
(3.) The. dispute in this case relates to allotment of chak. Plot Nos. 762 and 249 were the original numbers of the petitioner. Plot No. 762 was initially valued at 90 paise. Plot No. 249, which was the other original number of the petitioners, is a plot on the road side according to the petitioners. The petitioners were proposed allotment and were allotted a chak on their original numbers. The petitioners were satisfied with this allotment. Four separate appeals were preferred by other tenure holder Devta Deen and others. The Settlement Officer of Consolidation decided all the four appeals by common order dated 24.7.1991 and held that the valuation of plot No. 762 be reduced from 90 paise to 30 paise. Accordingly, he modified the chaks. He allotted plot No. 249 into bachat. As a consequence of the reduction of the valuation of plot No. 762 he allotted to the other tenure-holders Devta Deen, Bans Dev and Bansi an additional area in their chaks from plot No. 762. Dissatisfied with the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation the petitioners preferred a revision. The Deputy Director of Consolidation by his order dated 29.6.2000 dismissed the revision. It also appears that one Hari Ram, the respondent had preferred a revision against the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation dated 16.9.1992, which was allowed and as a consequence certain modifications were made in the chak of the various tenure-holders. Gaya Prasad, the respondent No. 4 was allotted an area, from plot No. 249, which was originally the number of the petitioners but had been allotted as bachat land by the order of the Settlement Officer of Consolidation. Against the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation allowing the revision of Hari Ram, the petitioners had filed a restoration application on 29.6.2000, which was dismissed on the same day.;