S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Both these writ petitions are directed against a common order dated 17.8.2000 passed by Board of Revenue, Allahabad in Reference Nos. 74 and 75 of 1995-96. The main grievance of the petitioners in both the writ petitions is that notices were not served upon them who were the opposite parties in the reference. Today a supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of contesting respondents. Theye is only a bald assertion in the order sheet of 23.12.1997 as quoted in para-4 of the supplementary counter-affidavit to the effect that notices on opposite parties except opposite party No. 2 served. In respect of opposite party No. 2 it is mentioned that notices not received back after service. There is no mention in the supplementary counter affidavit that notice on opposite party No. 2 was ever served. There is no indication that in what manner the notice was served upon other opposite parties.
(3.) It may also be mentioned that before filing of the writ petitions restoration application was filed before Board of Revenue and thereafter an application for withdrawing the restoration application had also been filed. Thereafter writ petition was filed and then restoration application was dismissed as withdrawn.;