Krishna Murari, J. - (1.) In view of the office report dated 16.7.1998 service of notice on opposite party No. 4 is deemed to be sufficient under the Rules of the Court.
(2.) Heared Sri R.N. Upadhyay appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3.
(3.) The facts are that the petitioners were allotted chak during the consolidation proceedings. Certain objections were filed which were decided by Consolidation Officer. Since, no appeal or revision was filed against the said order as such the order passed by Consolidation Officer became final and accordingly, the petitioners were put in possession over the land allotted in their chaks. Subsequently, on a complaint made by certain persons a reference was made bringing minor modification in the chak of the petitioners. The petitioners did not raise any objection and the reference was accepted by the Deputy Director of Consolidation vide order dated 11.2.1988. After getting possession the petitioners made a lot of improvements in the land allotted to them after incurring huge expenditure. On some complaints made by respondent No. 4 due to village partibandi, a fresh notice dated 27.1.1989 was issued by Consolidation Officer requiring the petitioners to present themselves before him on 7.2.1989. In compliance to the aforesaid notice the petitioners appeared before the Assistant Consolidation Officer on 7.2.1989. The matter was referred to the Consolidation Officer and the petitioners were directed to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 8.2.1989 who enquired from them about the changes made in their chak. The petitioners were informed by the Consolidation Officer that they would get notice from the officer of Deputy Director of Consolidation. Subsequently, the Consolidation Officer submitted a report at 8.2.1989.;