S.N.Dwivedi, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to a grove. At one time certain persons were co-grove holder of the grove. Behari Lal who filed this petition and after his death is now represented by his legal representatives purchased the share of some of them. Some of the others sold their share to Mauji Ram and others, the respondents. Both sales were effected sometime in 1954 and 1955. Both vendees applied for mutation of their names. The application of Behari Lal was allowed while that of Mauji Ram and others was rejected. It appears that at the stage of the consolidation proceedings under Section 8 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act as it stood before 1958 the name of Behari Lal alone was entered as the sole grove holder of the entire grove. Chhotey Singh and others filed in objection under Section 12 of the Act. It was dismissed by the Consolidation Officer on he ground that no such objection could be made under Section 12 in respect of a grove. Mauji Ram and others did not file any objection under Section 12 and subsequently they filed an application which was treated as an objection under Section 20 of the Act. It was, however, dismissed on the ground that it was barred by Section 12(7) of the Act. It appears that two revisions were then filed. One was filed by Chhotey Singh and others and the other by Mauji Ram and others. Both of them were dismissed by the Dy. Director in October 1958. While dismissing the revisions the Deputy Director incidently remarked that the remedy for the applicants was to file a proper application under Section 5(a) of the Act which would be heard on merits. After that, order Chhotey Singh and others and Mauji Ram and others moved the Consolidation Officer under Section 5(a). The Consolidation Officer rejected the applications on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to entertain them. H is order was upheld in appeal by the Settlement Officer. In revision, however, the Deputy Director had reversed the order and directed the Consolidation Officer to entertain the application of the two parties under Section 5(a).
(2.) Feeling aggrieved with the order of the Deputy Director Consolidation, Behari Lal filed this petition. As already stated, he died during the pendency of the petition and his legal representatives have been brought on record.
(3.) No steps were taken to serve the notice of the writ petition on Chhotey Singh respondent No. 10. Notices of the petition were served on his brothers, the respondents Nos. 11, 12 and 13. Office reported about want of service on Chhotey Singh on March 21, 1966. Two weeks were granted for taking steps to serve him. No steps were, however, taken to serve during the time granted. On May 16, 1966 office reported again. On May 29, 1966 the case was listed before the Deputy Registrar. No one appeared before him and he directed that the petition should be listed for disposal before the Court with the report that Chhotey Singh was not served with the notice of the petition for want of prosecution.;